Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Elphinstone Spinning And Weaving Mills vs Collector Of C.E. on 5 May, 1987
Equivalent citations: 1989(42)ELT150(TRI-DEL)
ORDER H.R. Syiem, Member (T)
1. When this matter came up before the bench on 14-4-1987, it first heard the application for change of name. The appellants M/s. Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. asked that the name be changed to Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Mills (U.C.) N.T.C. (South Maharashtra) Ltd., Bombay. The bench allowed the change.
2. Next the bench heard the arguments by Mr. Gopal Prasad counsel for M/s. Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Mills. He said that the lower authorities seem to have misunderstood the meaning of the Notification 56/78-C.E. and have read the words "research and test laboratories" in the Schedule as meaning that their laboratory should be both a research and a test laboratory. The learned Counsel said it was not necessary that it be both - it is enough if it was either a research laboratory or a test laboratory. If "and" is to be read as a meaning the laboratory must be a research as well as a test laboratory, then it will be an impossible interpretation in the case of thermal and hydel power stations: no power station can be both a thermal and a hydel station - it is either one or the other.
3. We agree with this interpretation. In any case, there seems to be no great virtue in insisting that only laboratories which are research-and-test laboratories should get it, and not research laboratories or test laboratories. We are not able to agree with the learned Counsel for the department who said that the order of the lower authorities was correct. The refusal to allow the airconditioner at concessional rate under Notification No. 56/78-C.E. was not correct.
4. In fact, it appears from the records that an L-6 licence had already been issued to enable the laboratory to obtain the airconditioner at concessional rate of duty, but it seems that, without proper process, the department set out to withdraw and to the concession.
5. The manner in which the orders were issued also leaves much to be desired. In one letter dated 30th July, 1982 the mills were informed that the Collector had not accorded his sanction to the issue of L-6 licence as their laboratory would not constitute a research and test laboratory. The question then would arise why the L-6 licence was given in the first place. In the next letter dated 20th August, 1983, the Assistant Collector informs the mills the same thing adding that the decision of the Collector was in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Notification No. 56/78-CE.. and that no formal orders other than executive instructions were necessary. They were told that if they were aggrieved, they could make a representation to the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. This is a piece of futility, because it is difficult to see the purpose of making a representation to the Collector who had himself refused to accord the sanction for L-6. He would be a biased authority and would not be able to deliver a dispassionate judgment on the matter.
6. In any case, the decision to deny the concession was wrong. We direct that it should be given to the mills' test laboratory.