J.B. MANGHARAM Vs. ASSTT. COLLECTOR, EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMITTEDLY , there is no charge in the charging section i.e. section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, though the rules underwent the change. Shri Jagdishan, appearing for the petitioner, has laid much stress on the procedure as contained in Rule 173C of the Central Excises and Salt Rules, 1944. The rule has been substituted with effect from 1.4.1994. It is contended by the petitioner that under the rule the assesses is required to declare the value which he assesses and the petitioner, being the job -worker, is not required to show the value for which the articles arc to be sold at the wholesale rate.

(2.) IT is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the removal of the goods or the articles from the petitioner's establishment was not the sale as he was the job worker because the material was supplied to the petitioner and the petitioner only manufactures the goods.

(3.) WITH the change or the rule, there is a departure about the mode and the procedure about the valuation of the goods, but the liability is to be fixed only u/s. 4. It may be noted as · not disputed, that the assessment made by the authority u/s. 4, of the petitioner is under challenge and the petitioner has preferred an appeal. The remedy which is provided under the law, has been availed of by the petitioner and is not yet exhausted.