NEELAM PRINTS Vs. DEPUTY SUPDT CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner concern established in the year 1963 is engaged in the business of dyeing and printing of artificial silk fabrics. Admittedly till the issuance of notification dated April 24, 1962 (Annexure P-l) by the respondent authorities in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 8 (1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, no excise duty was payable by the petitioner concern under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The contents of the above noted notification are as under :

(2.) THE claim of the petitioner is that since it was not manufacturing any rayon or artificial silk fabrics but was only engaged in dyeing and printing rayon and artificial silk fabrics which admittedly they were doing with the help of steam, they were neither liable nor did they pay any excise duty till the issuance of notification Annexure P-3. According to the petitioner, it was for the first time vide Annexure P-3 that the expression 'processed' was defined to include all processes which are ordinarily carried on with the aid of power or steam. Its specific case is that it was not engaged in the processing of rayon or artificial silk fabrics with the aid of power.

(3.) ON March 8, 1964, respondent No. 1, Deputy Superintendent, Central Excise, Amritsar, issued a demand notice to the petitioner concern for payment of Rs. 53,179. 28 on account of excise duty for the period February 1963 to March 7, 1964, that is upto the date of issuance of notification Annexure P-3. Against this demand, a representation was made by the petitioner but the same was rejected by the Assistant Collector, respondent No. 2, on August 14, 1969. However, on appeal the case was remanded by the Collector for affording further opportunity to the petitioner. On reconsideration, the Assistant Collector vide his order Annexure P-4 dated April 26, 1972 rejected the contention of the petitioner to the effect that since it was not engaged in processing of rayon or artificial silk fabrics with the aid of power and were doing it only with the aid of steam, it was not liable to pay the excise duty prior to the issuance of Annexure P-3. This order of the Assistant Collector has been. affirmed by the revision vide their orders Annexures P-5 and P-6. The petitioner now impugns the above noted orders and the demand notice on the grounds :