Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Collector Of C. Ex. vs Lakshmi Mills Company Ltd. on 30 April, 1987
Equivalent citations: 1989(43)ELT487(TRI-DEL)
ORDER V.T. Raghavachari, Member (T)
1. Since the issue involved in both these appeals is common they were heard together.
2. The issue is whether cotton chindies during the relevant period were liable for payment of handloom cess or whether they were exempt from the same by virtue of Notification 4/24/73-TEX - i, dated 4-8-1973 and 15012/4/72 TEX - iv, dated 14-2-1975. In both matters the Assistant Collectors had held that cess was payable but the Appellate Collectors had held to the contrary.
3. Excise appeal No. 1437/81 relates to notice dated 30-12-1981 issued by the Central Govt. under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act for setting aside the order-in-appeal dated 6-7-1981 in the case of M/S. Lakshmi Mills Company Ltd. Excise Appeal No. 48/83-D is an appeal directly preferred to this Tribunal against order in-appeal dated 21-7-1982 in the case of M/s. Anglo French Textiles Ltd.
4. M/s. Lakshmi Mills Company Ltd. was represented by Shri Vijaya Raghavan, Regional Manager. M/s. Anglo French Textiles Ltd. did not appear in person or through a representative. The department was represented in both appeals by Shri Vineet Kumar.
5. This Tribunal had held in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Madras v. Kothari (Madras) Ltd. (Excise Appeal No. 1432 of 81-D) under Order No. 215/1987-D dated 4-3-1987 that no handloom cess was payable on the cotton chindies also and that the exemption was not restricted to chindies of man-made fibres only. The ratio of the said decision applies to the period in issue in the present two appeals also. In view of the said decision Shri Vineet Kumar had nothing further to add except to reiterate submissions made for the department in the earlier appeal also. Shri Vijaya Raghavan relied on the said earlier decision.
6. Following the said earlier decision cited above we held that in the present cases also no handloom cess was payable by either of the respondents. Accordingly we uphold the orders of the Appellate Collector in both matters and dismiss these appeals. Notice dated 30.12.1981 mentioned earlier is accordingly discharged.