SIRPUR PAPER MILLS LTD Vs. GOVT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Common point is involved and therefore, those two petitions are disposed of by a common order.

(2.) M/s. Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. Hyderabad, who is the petitioner in these two cases, claims concessional rates of excise duty for the years 1976 and 1977 by seeking to issue a certiorarised mandamus for quashing the order of the Govt. of India confirming the orders of the Asst. Collector of Central Excise and the Appellate Collector of Central Excise and consequential direction for the refund of Excise duty collected.

(3.) The format of the case in brief is the petitioner, a public limited company, carried on the business of manufacturing paper at Sirpur Kahaznagar. The petitioner enlarged their production capacity by installing newspaper machines in their manufactory, which came into production from about the month of April, 1967. The Govt. of India, first respondent herein, by their notification No. 163/65, dated 1.10.1965 extended concessional rates in respect of paper which was attributable to the enlarged production capacity of the producers and cleared after 1.3.64. Under the said notification, as averred by the petitioner, issued under sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the rules') the concession was to operate with reference to the period during which the paper was manufactured. However, the said notification was rescinded by Notification Nc.87/73, dated 1.3.73. The petitioner had claimed the benefit of the concessional rates of Excise duty in respect of the paper produced during the period related to the enlarged production capacity but removed from the factory after 1.3.73, the date on which the earlier notification came to be rescinded. The Asst. Collector, Central Excise, 3rd respondent herein, based on the provisions of Rule 9-A of the Rules, rejected the claim on the ground that the conclusion will not be available in respect of any stocks that are hold by the manufacturers after the notification dated 1.3.73 and that the petitioner was liable to pay the full rate of duty. Aggrieved against, the petitioner preferred unsuccessfully an appeal before the Appellate Collector, Central Excise, 2nd respondent herein and a revision before the Government of India, first respondent herein, resulting in the confirmation of the orders of the 3rd respondent on the ground that under rule 9-A the rate of duty applicable is the one prevailing at the time of its removal from the place of manufacture and the tariff rate read with any exemption notification comes into play only at that time; since at the time of clearance the exemption notification stood rescinded, the right of benefit contemplated under the said notification become extinguished. Hence these writ petitions.