AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1984 (7) TMI 357
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f it were an appeal before it. 2. The issue arising for determination in the present appeal is whether stocks of petroleum products held in bond by the appellant company as at the end of 28-2-1978 would, on their clearance from the bonded warehouses on or after 1-3-1978, attract levy of special excise duty which was imposed for the first time on 1-3-1978 by Section 37 of the Finance Act, 1978. 3. By a letter dated 11-7-1978, the Assistant Collector, Visakhapatnam, decided that special excise duty was payable on such stocks cleared on or after 1-8-1978 on payment of basic excise duty (the excise duty leviable under the First Schedule to the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944). The effect of this decision, though not spelt out i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 3 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, special excise duty was an independent and new levy which, in the present case, was not in force on the date or dates of manufacture of the goods. In this context, he drew our attention to the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Shree Synthetics Ltd., Ujjain v. Union of India & Others - 1982 E.L.T. 97 (M.P). particularly para 8 thereof. The decision of the same High Court in Kirloskar Bros. Ltd. v. Union of India - 1978 E.L.T. J (33) (M.P.)-to the effect that if goods were wholly exempt on the date of manufacture, they would not be liable to excise duty even if before the date of removal, the exemption was withdrawn, was also relied upon. The situation in the present case was analogo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....akshmi Kumaran, that he relied on the Tribunal's decision in the Sirpur Mills case in support of the Appellate Collector's order. He agreed with Shri Badkar that special excise duty was distinct and different from basic excise duty. The question was whether it was chargeable on the date of removal of goods, not whether it was in force on the date of manufacture especially because special excise duty was leviable on all dutiable excisable goods. Adverting to the Delhi High Court decision in 1982 E.L.T. 247, he submitted that the said decision which was in the context of the tax credit scheme for income-tax purposes had no application to the present case. 6. We have carefully considered the contentions of both sides. The very same iss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or warehouse, the goods were chargeable with a duty of excise (basic excise duty) under the Central Excises & Salt Act read with any relevant notification for the time being in force. If the answer was in the affirmative, special excise duty was automatically attracted. The date of removal of the goods from the producing factory or warehouse in terms of Central Excise Rule 9-A (1) (ii) would, therefore, be relevant for determining the levy of special excise duty and not the date of manufacture or production of the goods. 7. Shri Badkar urged before us that special excise duty was not a duty of excise within the meaning of Section 3 of the Central Excises & Salt Act read with Rule 2(v) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which defines....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to refunds and exemptions from duties, shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the levy and collection of the special duties of excise leviable under this section in respect of any goods as they apply in relation to the levy and collection of the duties of excise on such goods under that Act or those rules, as the case may be." It is, therefore, clear that Rule 9-A which inter alia specifies the relevant dates for determination of the rate of basic excise duty chargeable on excisable goods removed from a factory or warehouse applies to the levy and collection of special excise duty as it applies to the levy and collection of basic excise duty. 8. The Delhi High Court decision in 1982 E.L.T. 247 (Del.) deals with a entirely....