Supreme Court of India
Wiltech India Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 9 March, 1995
Equivalent citations: 1996(84)ELT5(SC), (1997)10SCC349, AIRONLINE 1995 SC 72, 1997 (10) SCC 349, (1996) 84 ELT 5, (2001) 4 ANDH LT 648, (2001) 4 LAB LN 103, (2001) 5 ANDHLD 13, (2002) 1 SERVLR 129, (2002) 2 SCT 962
Bench: A.M. Ahmadi, S.P. Bharucha, K.S. Paripoornan
ORDER
S.P. Bharucha and K.S. Paripoornan, JJ.
1. The Tribunal relying on the decision of this Court in Geep Flash Light Industries Limited v. Union of India 1985 (22) E.L.T. 3 affirming the decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in 1985 (19) E.L.T. 68 held that since the razors manufactured by the appellant were not wholly made of plastic but were made of plastic and an iron rod, the same could not be said to be covered by the exemption Notification No. 182/82-C.E., dated 11-5-1982. The razor manufactured by the appellant was shown to us. The handle of the razor is made of plastic and the hollow portion is filled with an iron rod running through the length of the handle. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in holding that the razor could not be said to be made wholly from plastic but it was made of plastic with an iron rod and hence was not covered by the notification in question. We are of the view that the Tribunal was right in its approach.
2. Counsel, however, places reliance on two decisions of this Court reported in Aluminium Corporation of India v. Union of India and Union of India v. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Limited 1976 (2) SCR 1044 and contended that these decisions by larger Benches were ignored by the Tribunal. It appears that the latter decision was cited before the Tribunal and the Tribunal did not place reliance on it holding that the decision in Geep Flash Light Industries case was a later decision although rendered by two learned Judges of this Court and the same was required to be followed. While this reasoning may not be wholly appropriate, we have perused both the decisions on which counsel has placed reliance and we are satisfied that those decisions have no direct application to the facts of the case and the decision in Geep Flash Light Industries Limited is the decision which applies on all fours and the Tribunal was right in relying on the same. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.