2007 (7) TMI 127

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mending Notification No. 6/2002-C.E., dated 1-3-2002 fixing specific rate of duty @ Rs. 1/- per Kg. and Rs. 1.25 per Kg. for branded, refined edible oils and Vanaspathi respectively. The appellants were directed by the Superintendent to discharge the duty liability on the pre-budget stocks when they were clearing after the imposition of the above mentioned duties. Though the appellants complied with the direction of the Superintendent, they were of the view that they need not pay duty on the pre-budget stock. Hence, they filed a refund claim. The refund claim was rejected by the original authority. While rejecting the refund claim, the original authority relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Wallace Flour Mills ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the Wallace Floor Mills case is not correct. In the Wallace Flour Mills case, the goods were excisable prior to March 1, 1987. Even though there was a tariff rate of duty the goods were exempted by virtue of a Notification and effective rate of duty was Nil. It was held that even when the rate of duty was Nil, it does not mean that the goods were not excisable. They were excisable goods and Nil rate of duty is also a rate of duty. W.e.f. March 1, 1987, the said goods became chargeable to duty at 15% ad valorem. In the above circumstances, the court held that on the basis of Section 3 of the Central Excise Act and Rule 9(A) that though the goods were produced prior to March 1, 1987, still they attract duty prevailing on the date of their r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... manufacture or the production of an excisable article, the duty can be levied and collected at a later date for administrative convenience." 5.1 In the present case, prior to Budget of 2003, in the Central Excise Tariff, the refined edible oils were mentioned attracting Nil rate of duty. In other words, the only difference between the present case and the Wallace Flour Mills case is that in the Wallace Flour Mills case, the goods were subjected to Nil rate of duty by exemption notification and in the present case, the Central Excise Tariff itself mentions Nil rate of duty. This difference is not at all material. In both these cases, the goods are excisable. In the present case, we cannot say that the goods are not excisable for the reas....