CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND GOLD (CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
B.B. Gujral, K.L. Rekhi, Rama Devi, JJ.
Collector of Central Excise, Patna -Appellant
Versus
Pyrites, Phosphates & Chemicals Ltd. -Respondent
Order No. B-40 of 1983
Decided On : 11-02-1983
1. This has been a proceeding pending before the Central Government which is now transferred to the Appellate Tribunal under Sub-section 2 of Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter in this order referred to as the 'Act').
2. The respondents namely M/s. Pyrites, Phosphates and Chemicals Ltd,, are a Government of India concern and are engaged in the mining of pyrites at Amjhore in the State of Bihar. The pyrites come out in the form of lumps and the bigger lumps are used in the manufacture of sulphuric acid while the smaller lumps (after crushing) are used for agricultural purposes in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. The mining of pyrites by the respondents was commenced during the years 1967-68 and initially the low grade pyrites or smaller lumps were being dumped in and around the mine as refuse. After doing some research work in the matter, the respondents found that by manually screening such refuse, the same could be put to use for agricultural purposes and since then they started supplying the same as A.G. pyrites, i.e. Agricultural Grade pyrites for agricultural purposes by crushing these smaller lumps. In June, 1980 they received a letter from the Superintendent of Central Excise, Dalmia Nagar directing them to apply for a L-4 licence for the manufacture of A.G. Pyrites and also to pay duty under the Central Excise Tariff Item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the Act. Thereafter on 29-8-1981 a show cause notice was also issued to the respondents alleging the contravention of Rules 174, 173E, 173F, L73G as well as Rules 9, 52A and 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter in this order referred to as the 'Rules')- They were also to show cause to the Collector as to why penalties should not be imposed upon them under Rule 173Q of the Rules. Another show cause notice dated 28-10-1981 was also issued by the Assistant Collector alleging contravention of Rules 173B, 173E and 173G alongwith the other rules referred to in the first show cause notice. The respondents obtained L-4 licence under protest. The Collector of Central Excise, Patna in his order dated 29-1-1982 held that the A.G. pyrites manufactured by the respondent were excisable goods falling under Central Excise Tariff Item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the Act and also held that they have violated the provisions of Rules 9, 52A, 226, 173B, 173C, 173F and 173G of the Rules. The respondents went in appeal before the Central Board of Excise and Customs. The learned Board set aside the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Patna and allowed the appeal on the ground that the levy of duty under Central Excise Tariff Item No. 68 could not be made applicable as the pyrites lumps were being crushed within the mine premises and also the crushing would not result in the manufacture of a new commodity. The Government of India decided to review the order passed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs and issued a Notice to the appellants calling upon them to show cause to the Government as to why the order of the Board be not set aside and why the Collector's order be not restored. Further, pending decision by the Government in the proceedings, the operation of the order of the Board had been stayed.
3. At the outset the prayer of the respondents has been for vacation of the stay of the operation of the order of the Board pending the disposal of the proceedings so as to avoid holding up of stocks of lower grade pyrites lumps for which there is not sufficient storage space; supply the same to the farmers during the short season from November to May and avoid labour unrest, lay-off of staff and other complications which may result in by such holding up of such material. It has been felt that in view of the reasons put forward by the respondents the case may be straightaway heard and disposed of without any delay.
4. Shri Kampani on behalf of the respondents urged that the legislative background of Tariff Item No. 68 of the Central Excise woul
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.