TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1979 (9) TMI 70
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing that their pre budget stocks of non-excisable goods, namely, various types of food products declared in the classification list as aforesaid were entitled to duty-free clearance being pre-budget stocks. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, however, held that the question of clearing pre-budget stocks duty-free did not arise because the products in question were excisable though exempted from the duty. There was an appeal from the said order of the Assistant Collector before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. He dismissed the appeal. The appellant went up in appeal before the Tribunal. It was contended before the Tribunal on behalf of the appellant that the goods in question were not liable to duty under the aforesa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iew of rule 9A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, though the taxable event is the manufacture and production, the payment of duty is related to and postponed to the date of removal of the articles from the manufactory. The Tribunal accepted the said contention. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal was right. It is well-settled by the scheme of the Act as clarified by several decisions that even though the taxable event is the manufacture or production of an excisable article, the duty can be levied and collected at a later stage for administrative convenience. The scheme of the said Act read with the relevant rules framed under the Act, particularly rule 9A of the said rules, reveals that the taxable event is the fact of manufacture or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....merely does that. That is the scheme of the Act. It does not, in our opinion, make removal the taxable event. The taxable event is the manufacture. But the liability to pay the duty is postponed till the time of removal under rule 9A of the said Rules. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory v. Supdt. of Central Excise [1986] 23 ELT 313, where it was decided that the words "as being subject to a duty of excise" appearing in section 2(d) of the Act are only descriptive of the goods and do not relate to the actual levy. "Excisable goods", it was held, do not become non-excisable goods merely by reason of the exemption given under a notification. This view was also ....