CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND GOLD (CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
B.B. Gujral, S.D. JHA, A.J.F. D’Souza, JJ.
Lallubhai Amichand Ltd. -Appellant
Versus
Collector of Central Excise, Bombay -Respondent
Order No. 497 of 1984-B , 497 of 1984
Decided On : 04-06-1984
S.D. Jha, J.
1. The appellants had filed this Revision application against the Order-in-Original dt. 9-6-1982, passed by Sh. K.S. Dilipsinhji, Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, before the Central Board of Excise
2. Facts material for decision of this appeal are : that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Aluminium Utensils/Containers. For the purpose of manufacturing such products, they cut out Aluminium Circles falling under T.I. 27(b) from Aluminium Sheets also falling under the same sub-tariff item i.e. 27(b). It appears that before 1970, in such a situation no excise duty was collected at the stage of manufacture of Circles and at that time duty was not ad valorem but was specific i.e. on weight basis. Central Excise duty on this item was partly ad valoremised in 1970. The appellants were not paying duty at the stage of Circles but were paying duty at the final product stage that is aluminium utensils. They were also not following the procedure laid down under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter called Rules). The appellants claim that for doing so they were relying on a clarification given by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay vide his communication dated 5-4-1961, addressed to the appellants' subsidiary concern M/s. Metal Rolling Works Private Ltd. The said communication related to Copper Sheets and Circles. It was clarified 'that manufacturers, who are only making Circles out of duty paid sheets would not be required to pay duty again on Circles cut out from such duty paid sheets. Sometimes in 1976, the Excise authorities on verification found that the appellants had manufactured and cleared Hindalium and Aluminium Circles weighing 403533 kgs. valued at Rs. 50,64,339.15 and 3,12,791.800 kgs. valued at Rs. 37,84,780.78 respectively. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay Division-II issued a show cause notice dated 24-11-1976 to the appellants alleging contravention of Rules and called upon them to show cause why duty on Circles be not recovered and penalty imposed. The appellants filed reply denying the allegations. The Collector after complying with usual procedure by his Order No. V-Adj. (27) 15-3/76, dt. 7-10-1980, confirmed the demand of Rs. 41,12,707.80 paise and also imposed penalty of Rs. 40,000 on the appellants. The appellants challenged this order before the Central Board of Excise
3. First contention urged by Sh. E.R. Srikantia, learned Consultant for the appellants is that cutting out 'Circles' out of duty paid 'Sheets' does not constitute manufacture in the Excise sense and no liability for duty arises. He submitted that the relevant Tariff Item 27(b) of the Central Excise Tariff at the material time read "Manufactures, the following, namely, plates, sheets, circles, strips, shapes and sections, in any form or size, not otherwise specified". He submitted so long as goods remained within the same sub-item, it cannot be said that 'manufacture' has taken place from the Excise point of view. The inten
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.