SUBURBAN INDUSTRIAL WORKS Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner feels aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not refunding to him the excise duty charged by them on the bellowers manufactured by the petitioner in his factory.

(2.) The petitioner is a manufacturer of electrical fans and blowers with and without electrical device. The blowers without any electrical device were not liable to excise duty under Item 33 of the Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, till June 30, 1971, when the said item was amended. In order to appreciate the contention of the petitioner Item 33, as it stood before the amendment, may be reproduced as follows : -

(3.) It is not necessary for our purpose to mention the rates of duty chargeable on each of the above articles. Sub-item (1) are all electrically operated fans and there can be no doubt that they are chargeable to excise duty. The dispute is with regard to those mentioned in sub-item (2). I have already referred to Item 33 as it stood before the amendments and it is clear that the articles mentioned in sub-Item (2) were exempted from excise duty under Item 33 before it was amended. The question is whether the inclusion of sub-item (2) makes the blower without any electrical device and manufactured by the petitioner chargeable to excise duty. Mr. Sarkar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that blowers with electrical device may be chargeable to excise duty but blowers without any electrical device are not contemplated by sub-item (2) of Item 33. In my opinion, there is considerable substance in the said contention of Mr. Sarkar. The pronoun 'those' undoubtedly refers to electrical fans. Therefore, unless the articles mentioned in sub-item (2) are electric fans pr are operated by electrical device, they cannot, in my opinion, come within the purview of that sub-item so as to make them chargeable to excise duty.