Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Oriental Carpet Mfg. (India) Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise And Customs on 11 January, 1983
Equivalent citations: 1983ECR395D(TRI.-DELHI), 1983(12)ELT526(TRI-DEL)
ORDER
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Appellate Collector (Excise), New Delhi, by which he had maintained the order of the Assistant Collector dated 1-8-77. Originally, this appeal was filed as a revision petition before the Central Government but in view of Section 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962 it has been registered as an appeal after transfer.
2. The facts of the case briefly are : The appellant manufactured certain varieties of terrywool and other suiting fabrics and claimed discount of 50% for the defective short-lengths and 35% in respect of the non-defective short-lengths. The Excise authorities conducted market enquiries through reputed dealers and in the light of such material, the Assistant Collector (Excise) allowed a rebate of 33-1/3% and 25% in respect of defective and non-defective short-lengths respectively.
3. This order of the Assistant Collector was challenged in appeal before the Appellate Collector, but the same wa supheld. Against the Appellate Collector's order, the present appeal has been preferred.
4. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that no representative of the appellant was taken to the market when the rates were ascertained, and secondly, the samples which had been taken were not representative in character. It was accordingly canvassed that the rebate allowed was unreasonable and therefore, the order be amended so as to raise the rebate to the extent applied for,
5. It was put to Shri Sikri, the learned representative of the appellant, as to whether there was any statutory procedure which the Excise Officer was called upon to follow for taking samples of all types of defective or short-length pieces and secondly, whether it also enjoined on him to take some representative of the appellant with him when he had gone to conduct the enquiry from the market. In answer to the query, Shri Sikri had not been able to lay his hands on any statutory rule or other provision. The Excise Officer had visited the market and made enquiries. He had the power to do so. After collecting the information, he made a comparative study and allowed a rebate of 25% for non-defective short-length and 33-1/3% for defective short-length fabrics: It was further put to Shri Sikri that in case the officer concerned had allowed a lower rate of duty, how it would have been possible to gauge the same.
6. We feel that the Excise Officer had acted reasonably in the discharge of his duties and after making enquiries from the market, he had allowed the rebate now questioned. We do not find any valid reason to interfere with the discretion exercised. He had not exceeded his jurisdiction or power. His action cannot be challenged on that score.
7. Further, he was not supposed to take any representative of the party with him, nor was he bound to take samples of all the 300 and odd types of pieces, which were under scrutiny. The learned representative of the appellant has submitted that the persons from whom enquiries were made were not the purchasers. We cannot go into this kind of argument as it was for the Excise Officer to collect information for finding out from various sources what price the goods in question would fetch when sold in the market.
8. The appellant further contended that defective goods would not bring the price which the normal goods would fetch and therefore, they would have to be sold at a lower rate. It was prayed that the lower price should be treated as the price of the goods and a corresponding reduction in the value of such defective-cum-short-length goods should be allowed for assessment purposes. We do not see any force in this plea because the Excise Officer had not acted by any rule of thumb. He had made necessary market enquiries and only after doing so, he had exercised his discretion in a reasonable manner which does not warrant any interference.
9. In the result we find no force in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed.