SUSHIL KUMAR CHAKRABORTY Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the material time the petitioner used to manufacture rubber products including Radiator Nose pipes in his factory, named Messrs. S.K. Rubber Works at 23, Prince Anwar Shah Road, Calcutta. With effect from the 26th May, 1967, the Central Excise duties became leviable on rubber products including pipes and tubes of unbardened volcanised rubber under sub-item No. 3 of item No 16A of the 1st Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

(2.) During the [period May 26, 1967 to May 31, 1968, the petitioner had removed goods manufactured in his factory by submitting application in Form A.R.I, and after payments of excise duty calculated on the basis of price of articles declared by him. On December 13, 1967 he as the proprietor of Messrs S.K. Rubber Works executed a General Bond with security for provisional assessment of his goods to excise duty in favour of the President of India. The said Bond was signed on May 8, 1968. With effect from June 1, 1968 special procedure under Chapter VIII of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 began to apply in case of rubber products. Since June 1, 1968 the petitioner had been clearing goods from his factory under the Gate Passes in the prescribed forms and by submitting monthly returns in Form R.T. 12. He had paid the above excise duty on the basis of the price lists submitted by him from time to time.

(3.) The subject matters of the challenge in the present Rule are : (a) the show cause notice, dated the 26th October, 1968 issued by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Calcutta VI Division, C. No. V (16A) 18/11-Cal. VI/68/3516; (b) the letter of the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Calcutta VI Division No. C. No. V(16-A)/18/11/Cal. VI/68/ 4565, dated the 27th November, 1968; and(c) Order No. 1 (16A) A.C. 1071, dated the 26th May, 1971 passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Calcutta VI Division. The Assistant Collector by the above show cause notice, dated the 26th October, 1968 had called upon the petitioner above concern to show cause why the assessable value of hose pipes manufactured by it with the Dunlop Trade Mark should not be fixed at the wholesale cost price at which the same and similar kinds of hose pipes with the said trade mark were sold by the Dunlop Rubber Company (India) Limited.