HIND RUBBER FACTORY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER any goods which are exempted from the payment of Excise Duty under a notification issued in pursuance of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') ceases to be ex-cisable goods within the meaning of Section 2 (d) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 ('the Act' for short) is the short but important question raised in this writ petition.

(2.) M/s Hind Rubber Factory, the petitioner in the present case is engaged in the business of manufacturing cheap rubber chappals in its factory for the last more than 20 years. It has also started manufacturing transmission rubber beltings for the last six-years. Footwears including rubber chappals fall under tariff item No. 36 of the First Schedule to the Act whereas transmission rubber beltings (T. R. B.) fall under item No. 16-A (4) of the First Schedule.

(3.) THE expression "excisable goods" is defined under Section 2 (d) of the Act to mean "goods specified in the First Schedule as being subject to a duty of excise and includes salt. " Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short "the Rules") empowers the Central Government to exempt by notification any excisable goods from the whole or part of the duty leviable. Section 6 and Rule 174 provide for taking of licence in relation to specified goods manufactured in India. Rule 174-A empowers the Central Government to exempt any goods from the operation of Rule 174 i. e. from taking a licence for those goods.