Skip to content


Devi Dayal Non-ferrous Vs. Collector of Central Excise - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On
Reported in(1984)(16)ELT537TriDel
AppellantDevi Dayal Non-ferrous
RespondentCollector of Central Excise
Excerpt:
.....that the process of covering bare aluminium wires with paper did not amount to manufacture.the asstt. collector of central excise, by his order dated 24-9-77 which was communicated to the appellants by the superintendent of central excise, bombay on 6-10-77, reclassified the goods under item 68 of the central excise tariff on the ground that a new product, namely, 'conductors' came into existence, which was classifiable under the said item 68 of the cet. the appellate collector of central excise, bombay, upheld the order of the asstt. collector and dismissed the appeal. shri h.s. durve, chartered accountant, appearing on behalf of the appellants drew the attention of the bench to the following judgments of the bombay high court: (1) shakti insulated wires pvt. ltd. and anr. v. union.....
Judgment:
1. This is a Revision Application filed by M/s. Devidayal Non-fen ous Industries Pvt. Ltd. dated 12-6-79 and is directed against the order-in-appeal No. 1492/78 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay dated 2nd January, 1979, which has been transferred to this Tribunal and is being considered as an appeal. The short question involved in the appeal relates to assessment of aluminium strips falling under Item 27 (b) of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellants were paying excise duty on bare as well as paper covered strips of aluminium since it was considered that the process of covering bare aluminium wires with paper did not amount to manufacture.

The Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, by his order dated 24-9-77 which was communicated to the appellants by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Bombay on 6-10-77, reclassified the goods under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff on the ground that a new product, namely, 'conductors' came into existence, which was classifiable under the said Item 68 of the CET. The Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, upheld the order of the Asstt. Collector and dismissed the appeal. Shri H.S. Durve, Chartered Accountant, appearing on behalf of the appellants drew the attention of the Bench to the following judgments of the Bombay High Court: (1) Shakti Insulated Wires Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. (reported in 1982 E.L.T. page 10).

(2) Devidayal Rolling & Refineries Pvt. v. Ltd. H.V. Nadkarni and Ors. in the Misc. Petition Nos. 839 of 1979 (Judgment delivered on 16-8-82) and the Tribunal's order No. D-148/83 dated 30-3-1983.

(3) He also cited the decision of the Tribunal vide Order No. D-148/83 dated 30-3-83 wherein the Tribunal has followed the above judgments of the Bombay High Court.

Shri Durve contended that the paper covered insulated aluminium strips should continue to be assessed under Item 27(b) and not under Item 68 in the light of the judgments referred to above. He also claimed that the Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 21,954.96 was recovered by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise from the refund claim amounting to Rs. 473,062.05 which was sanctioned to the Appellants without issuing a show-cause notice and without granting them an opportunity to represent their case before the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise.

Shri Durve was, however, not able to produce any evidence to support his submission that the said amount of Rs. 21,954 96 was recovered by the Asstt. Collector in the manner stated by him.

2. The Departmental Representative stated that he has nothing to say in this case in view of the judgment referred to above. Though the above judgments were not in respect of the case covering aluminum strips, which is the case under consideration, the ratio of these judgments would cover the aluminium strips as well. The goods in question, therefore would be classifiable under Item 27(b) of the Central Excise Tariff and not Item 68 of CET, as done by the Asstt. Collector and the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. The appeal is accordingly allowed in respect of the classification of the goods. The department would examine and dispose of the claim for refund in the light of these observations and if otherwise in order.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //