LAWS(ORI)-2002-11-17

ORIENTAL INSULATED CONDUCT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On November 13, 2002
Oriental Insulated Conduct Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS directed by this Court on 19.8.1987 the following question of law was referred to this Court for its opinion by the Appellate Tribunal. Customs, Excise and Gold (Control), New Delhi.

(2.) THE petitioner was issued a notice by the Superintendent. Central Excise, Cuttack -11 Range demanding Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 14,255.76 basic and Rs. 1,425.58 special under Rule 9 (1) of the Central Excise Rules in respect of Aluminum Strips of 2861.120 Kgs. made by the petitioner without payment of Central Excise duty and without preparing any Central Excise Documents. Notice was also issued to show cause why the amount referred to above should not be recovered as duty and why the goods under reference should not be confiscated. The reply to the show -cause being given, the question that arose for consideration before the authority was whether the Aluminium Strips manufactured by the petitioner was liable to duty under T.I. 27 (]) of the Central Excise Tariff. Before the authority question raised was whether the item could be assessed allegedly retrospectively rather than whether it was liable to duty under T.I. 27 (bj of Central Excise Tariff. The original authority held that it was assessable to duty under T.I. 27(b) of Central Excise Tariff. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Collector (Appeals) who confirmed the finding of the Assistant Collector. There was a further appeal to the Tribunal. The issue raised before the Tribunal was whether the aluminium strips would fall under entry T.I. 27{bl or T.I. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The argument was that the aluminium strips produced by the petitioner did not have the width.and dimension in respect of some other matters like copper and whether in that situation, the aluminium strips manufactured could be treated as coming under entry No. 27 (b) of Central Excise Tariff. The Tribunal held that the liability of the petitioner had to be assessed with reference to particular entry and not based on any comparison with other matters or entries and since the entry covered aluminium strips, whatever be its dimension, the same was exigible to duty under T.I. 27 (b) the Central Excise Tariff. Feeling aggrieved by this finding of the Tribunal, the petitioner sought the reference of the following question to this Court.

(3.) THERE is no dispute that; aluminium strips are manufactured by the petitioner, though according to it it was a product obtained at an intermediate stage of production and was not the ultimate product. Entry No. T.I. 27 (b) of the Central Excise Tariff imposes liability for duty for aluminium strips. There is nothing to show that the said entry is confined to levy of duty on what, is called the final product or the end product and is not applicable to a product sought to be described as an intermediate product. The entry clearly covers aluminium strips. It may be noted that the relevance of the dimension of the aluminium strips sought to be pressed into service by the petitioner is also not the subject matter of the question referred to us for decision as compelled by this Court. The only question that requires to be answered is whether aluminium strips admittedly manufactured by the petitioner as an intermediate product is liable to duty. In the absence of any indication that such a product is not liable to duty, we are satisfied that the question referred to us for decision has to be answered against the petitioner and in favour of the department. In other words, the question has been answered by holding that the product manufactured by the petitioner during the period in question is liable to duty under the Act.