ORISSA INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these the petitioners pray for quashing certain orders levying excise duty on certain goods, viz., China and porcelainwares' and 'glass and glass-wares' under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) The petitioner, Shree Durga Glass Works, carry on business manufacture of glass and glasswares and the petitioner, Orissa Industries Ltd. manufacturers china and porcelainware. These manufactured goods were free from all excise duties by the Finance Act, 1961, for the first time these goods were incorporated under the First Schedule of the Act for levying and collection of excise duties. The excise duties were imposed from the date when the Finance Act came into force, that is, from April 20, 1961. According to the direction given by cretin Excise Officers the petitioner made a declaration of the existing goods as it stood on the mid-night of February 28, 1961 and 1st March, 1.961 in the prescribed form. The petitioners were informed that goods which remained unsold up to January 25, 1962 would be liable for duty with effect from January 25, 1962 - although, they are lying in stock for delivery since February 28, 1961. In spite of the representation before the authorities namely, the respondent No. 6, the said factory officer made a demand for realization of the excise duty on these goods and a sum of Rs. 1200/- by the Shree Durga Glass Works and a sum of Rs. 2,500/- by the Orissa Industries Ltd. respectively were deposited with the authorities.

(3.) The petitioners, however, preferred an appeal to the respondent No. 4 who dismissed the said appeal on the view that these goods could not be treated as fully manufactured as they were not packed and ready for delivery out of factory on the relevant date. As against this order the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Collector, the respondent No. 3. He upheld the views taken by the Assistant Collector and dismissed the appeal. The petitioners then preferred an application for revision before the Central Board of Revenue which also in its turn rejected the application. That is how the petitioners felt aggrieved and obtained the present Rules.