T I MILLER LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition coming on for hearing on Thursday, the seventh; fourteenth, Friday the 15th, Tuesday, the 19th day of July, 1983; and on this day upon persuing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof the order of the High Court, dated 23-2-1981 and made herein, and of the records relating to the order C. No. V. 68/(N.S.)3/41/79, dated 31-1-1981 as amended by order C. No. V/68(N.S.) 3/41/79, dated 5-2-1981, on the file of the 2nd respondent comprised in the return of the respondents to the writ made by the High Court, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. Habibullah Badsha, Advocate for the Petitioner, and of Mr. T. Somasundaram, Additional Central Government standing counsel on behalf of the Respondents, the court made the following Order :

(2.) The Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 5-2-1981, of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise (2nd respondent) confirming the demand for Rs. 5,79,449.13 substituting the original demand for Rs. 7,09,237-84. This order is sequal to the order of Assistant Collector, dated 31st January, 1981. The short facts are as follows :

(3.) The petitioner company is engaged in the manufacture of cycle lamps among other things. The lamps so manufactured are supplied to cycle dealers. The cycle lamps fall under Item 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. As required under Rule 173-B of the Central Excise Rules, the petitioner company was filing classification lists for the goods manufactured and cleared by them. The classification list filed by the petitioner was approved by the department from time to time. Since the department itself treated cycle lamps as part of the cycle, the Government of India acting under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules exempted cycles and parts thereof under Notification No. 55 of 1975 as amended by Notification No. 102 of 1980 dated 18-6-1980. As a result, cycle parts were not liable for payment of duty from 18-6-1980.