Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In the decision of Allahabad High Court in E. Septon & Co. (P) Ltd. v. Superintendent of Central Excise and Another [(1985 (19) E.L.T. - page 57)] dealing with the definition of 'excisable goods', their Lordships held on the facts of that case, the petitioner therein need not obtain a license for manufacturing ice, since the same was exempted from levy of excise duty by virtue of a notification issued by the Government under Rule 8(1) of the Act.

In the decision rendered by Delhi High Court in Sulekaram & Sons v. Union of India [1978 ELT (J 525)] it was held that reading the exemption notification along with the Act, the effect is that goods manufactured by the petitioner therein, were taken out of the First Schedule and therefore were not 'excisable goods' within the meaning of S. 2(d) of the Act.

This decision has since been overruled in Vishal Andhra Industries v. Union of India [1983 ELT 2265 (Delhi)].

8. Sri Bhat has argued that on a correct interpretation of the notification, the clearances made by the petitioner from his two factories during the relevant period would be exigible to duty.

Dealing with the definition 'excisable goods' under the Act, Sri Bhat has submitted that it is only descriptive of the goods which are being subjected to duty. All excisable goods are subjected to levy under the charging Section 3 at the rates set forth in the First Schedule. The Government of India may, by a notification issued under Rule 8 exempt, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the notification, any excisable goods from the whole or any part of duty leviable on such goods. His contention is, that the goods continue to be excisable goods notwithstanding the exemption or concession granted under a notification issued by the Government of India in exercise of its power under Rule 8(1) of the Rules. It is, therefore, his submission that though the clearances made from the Goa factory were exempt from duty under Notfn. No. 54/75, they did not cease to be 'excisable goods' for the purpose of applying the criterion for levy of duty as specified under Notification No. 176/77. In support of this contention Sri Bhat has relied upon the following decisions :

In J. K. Steels Ltd. case, the Supreme Court reiterated the same principle and held :

"..... the levy and exemptions are parts of the same scheme of taxation. The two together carry into effect the purpose of the legislation. For finding out the true scheme of a taxing measure, we have to take into consideration not merely the levy but also the exemptions granted."

10. In the decisions relied upon by Sri Shivashankar Baht, namely of : (i) Allahabad; (ii) Andhra Pradesh and (iii) Madras, High Courts their Lordships, on a detailed examination of the definition of 'excisable goods' vis-a-vis the schedule and effect of notifications issued under the Act, have taken a uniform view that even though the excisable goods are exempted from excise duty by virtue of notifications issued by the Central Government, they do not cease to be 'excisable goods'.