TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1985 (6) TMI 189
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on No. 85/71, dated 29-5-1971, were also liable, in addition, to pay special excise duty in terms of Section 37(1) of the Finance Act, 1978. The amount involved during the above-mentioned period was ₹ 444.39, as held by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Amritsar. In appeal, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi accepted the contention of the appellants that the payment by them of the amount fixed under Rule 96-ZI amounted to a discharge of their total duty liability and that no further duty was payable by them. It is against this order that the present appeal had been filed. 2. Appearing before us for the appellant Collector, Shri Verma reiterated the submissions contained in the memorandum of appeal. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce to duty in Rule 96-ZI and the notification issued thereunder would mean only the duty leviable under Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. In support of this contention Shri Verma pointed out that Notification No. 85/71 specifically referred to the "rate of duty". Therefore, the payment of duty at the rate fixed under Rule 96-ZI would not be a discharge of the manufacturers' liability for the duties leviable under any other enactment, such as the special excise duty leviable under the Finance Act, 1978. 5. Shri Verma submitted that there was no notification in existence during the material time granting exemption from the special excise duty to embroidered cotton fabrics produced in a factory working under the compou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant Collector's order restored. 8. For the respondents, their learned Consultant, Shri Mathur submitted that under Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, the duties to be levied were the duties at the rates set forth in the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act. In the case of embroidered fabrics to which the Rule 96-ZI was applicable, what was payable was a compounded levy. This was governed by the notification issued in terms of that rule. The rates laid down in the notification were not shown in the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act. According to Shri Mathur, the special excise duty under Section 37(1) of the Finance Act, 1978 would not become applicable to such a compounded levy which was not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... were given in the Collector's appeal, nor could Shri Verma furnish them. He had, however, undertaken to do so as soon as possible after the hearing of the appeal. That was nearly 5 months ago. We have not so far been furnished with the particulars of the relevant decision. We find that the learned representative of the Department had addressed both the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Amritsar, who had filed the appeal, and (by name) his superior officer, the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh, requesting particulars of the appeal and making it clear that the Bench desired to have particulars of the judgment. There appears to have been no response to these communications from the Senior Departmental Representative to the Assista....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y Shri Verma. No doubt, Rule 96-ZI refers to the payment of "a sum". However, this sum is paid in discharge of the manufacturers' liability for the duty leviable. As pointed out by Shri Verma, under Rule 2(v) of the Central Excise Rules, the term "duty" means the duty payable under Section 3 of the Act. The Act itself, according to the preamble, has been enacted "to consolidate and amend the law relating to Central duties of excise......" Section 3 provides for the levy and collection of duties of excise on excisable goods at the rates set forth in the First Schedule. No doubt the rules framed under Section 37 have a wide sweep, but these rules are made "to carry into effect the purposes of this Act," which are stated in the preamble. We do....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the notification under Rule 96-ZI; in other words, the ceiling rate of duty would be that in the First Schedule but it would stand reduced by the notification issued under Rule 96-ZI, in the same manner as in other cases it would be the ceiling rate as in the First Schedule reduced by a notification under Rule 8(1). Clearly, therefore, the sum which was paid by the respondents was the duty chargeable thereon under the Central Excises and Salt Act read with the relevant Notification No. 85/71 of the Central Government. Having regard to the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 37 of the Finance Act, 1978, the special duty of excise was leviable in addition to the basic duty represented by the compounded levy under Rule 96-ZI." 13.&emsp....