1986 (2) TMI 239

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt prior to 19-6-1980 and used in their distillery located within the said factory after 18-6-1980 was liable to Central Excise duty under Item 15-CC of the Central Excise Tariff. Upto 18-6-1980 molasses was classified under Item of the Tariff as there was no separate Tariff Item for classification of this product. Under Notification No. 118/75-C.E., dated 30-4-1975, goods falling under Item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, manufactured in a factory and intended for use in the factory in which they were manufactured, or in any other factory of the same manufacturer, were exempted from the whole of duty of excise leviable thereon. The appellants were availing the benefit of this exemption Notification u....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-41 = 1985(21) E.L.T. 231 (Tri), paragraphs 35 and 36) and, (iii) Decision of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal in the case of Vazir Sultan Tabacco Company Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad (decided on 25-3-1983 and reported in 1985 (21) E.L.T. 757). 4.  Opposing the arguments of Shri Narasimhan, the learned Departmental Representative stated that the case of Kirloskar Brothers (1978 E.L.T. 690) stood on a different footing in as much as the goods in that case enjoyed conditional commission depending on the end use. 5.  We have carefully considered the records of the case and the submissions made before us during the hearing. We find that the facts of the cases relied upon by the le....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al will not be the determining factor for grant of exemption in respect of goods manufactured during duty-free period. The department filed a petition under Articles 132(1) and 133(1) of the Constitution of India before the Division Bench for a certificate of fitness for leave to appeal to Supreme Court against the aforesaid judgment. By their judgment dated 30-7-1975 (1978-E.L.T. 690) the Division Bench dismissed this petition. Thereafter, the department filed a Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court, which was dismissed with the following observations, viz., "S.L.P. dismissed on merit". 6.  The learned Advocate relied on paragraphs 35 and 36 of this Tribunal's decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Indore v. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the special excise duty was by itself a duty of excise and in a case where it was not leviable at the time of manufacture but was imposed between the time of manufacture and the time of removal, it could not be levied and collected at the time of removal. In taking this view, the Five-Member Bench considered various Judgments cited before them by both sides, including the judgment in Kirloskar Brothers. 8.  There is another decision dated 31-12-1984 of this Tribunal which goes in favour of the present appellants. This decision relates to the case of Castrol Limited, Calcutta v. Collector of Central Excise, Patna, reported in 1985-(5)-E.T.R.-427 = 1985 (21) E.L.T. 333 (Tri). This decision was not relied upon by either party in the p....