LAWS(ORI)-1981-9-7

BIZI INDUSTRIES Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE

Decided On September 09, 1981
BIZI INDUSTRIES Appellant
V/S
SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER runs a small scale Industry under the name and style of 'M/s Bizi Industries'. Besides taking Job orders of fabrication, petitioner is engaged in manufacture of steel furniture at Cuttack. The steel furniture are subject to levy of Central Excise Duty as per entry 40 of the First Schedule of the Central Excises and Salt Act. This entry provides for duty at the rate of 20% ad valorem. By two notifications dated 1 -4 -1971 and 17 -3 -1972 issued under Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, it was provided : (1) Nil rates applicable only to the first clearances up to a value not exceeding rupees one lakh in a financial year, and (2) Nil rates applicable only in case of a manufacturer whose value of steel furniture cleared in the preceding financial year had not exceeded rupees two lakhs. In case of a manufacturer who had no clearance in the preceding financial year 'nil' rates should be applicable only in case where the value of steel furniture during the financial year does not exceed rupees two lakhs. In the earlier notification dated 1 -4 -1971, exemption was provided upto Rs. 50,000/ - and in the latter notification this exemption was raised to rupees one lakh. Petitioner contends Central Excise authorities have demanded duty from the petitioner on the ground that the value of steel furniture cleared exceeded rupees one lakh in the years stated above in which he has claimed exemption The controversy between the parties rests on a single question. According to the Central Excise authorities, when the petitioner had collected Centra Excise duty on those goods,the duty so collected would be included in the value, whereas, the petitioner takes the stand that such duty is not to be included in the value of the goods for the purpose of assessment of Central Excise duty. As demands were made on the petitioner he went in appeal and revision, but his claims were rejected and hence this petition.

(2.) IN the return, it is stated that when the goods marketed by the manufacturer during the relevant period were not required to be assessed with manutacturer during the revalant period were not required to be assessed with excise duty, the manufacturer having shown in the bills collection of excise duty, the said duty amounts to value of the goods and cannot be exempted under the notifications.

(3.) ACCORDING to item 40 of Schedule 1 of the Act, Excise duty is vi -able on steel furniture the rate of 20% ad valorem. As petitioner is a manufacturer of steel furniture, he is liable to pay excise duty at the above rate. The question is how the value is to be computed. For the purpose of computing the value, according to Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Act the value, in relation to any excisable goods, does not include the amount of excise duty, if any, payable on such goods.