Skip to content


Orient General Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectExcise
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Writ No. 2274 of 1982
Judge
Reported in1986(24)ELT526(Del)
ActsCentral Excise Act, 1944 - Sections 4
AppellantOrient General Industries Ltd.
RespondentUnion of India
Cases ReferredHyderabad v. Government of India
Excerpt:
- .....tariff item 33 of the 1st schedule to the central excise and salt act, 1944 during the relevant period, regulators were not includible under the goods described as electric fans till june 18, 1977 when the said tariff item was amended. 2. miss rekha sharma, learned counsel for the government points out that the question of inclusion of regulators in the electric fans for purposes of levy of excise duty was considered by the high court of andhra pradesh in the case of jay engineering works ltd., hyderabad v. government of india & others 1982 e.l.t. 378 wherein it was held, since the regulator was inrisponsable part of fan and was treated as such by i.s.i. specifications and in trade parlance, thereforee its cost was includible in the assessable value under section 4 of the said act,.....
Judgment:

S.S. Chadha, J.

1. The issues raised in the present petition are identical to issues dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Jay Engineering Works Ltd. v. Union of India & Others, decided on October 20, 1980 reported in 1981 E.L.T. 284. The Division Bench has held that the Central Excise Tariff Item 33 of the 1st Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 during the relevant period, regulators were not includible under the goods described as electric fans till June 18, 1977 when the said Tariff item was amended.

2. Miss Rekha Sharma, learned counsel for the Government points out that the question of inclusion of regulators in the electric fans for purposes of levy of excise duty was considered by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Jay Engineering Works Ltd., Hyderabad v. Government of India & others 1982 E.L.T. 378 wherein it was held, since the regulator was inrisponsable part of fan and was treated as such by I.S.I. specifications and in Trade parlance, thereforee its cost was includible in the assessable value under Section 4 of the said Act, even prior to this amendment of June 18, 1977, this taking a view contrary to the judgment of this Court. I am bound by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court.

3. Accordingly C.W. 2274/82 is allowed. The impugned order dated July 13, 1979 is quashed. I direct the respondents to finalise the assessment for the relevant period after excluding the cost of regulators from the assessable value of the fans and thereafter refund the excess amount of excise duty collected and/or recovered from the petitioner within six months from today. On the facts and circumstances of the case I make no order as to costs.


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