TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1975 (8) TMI 48
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....refore, collected and sold at a nominal price of about 1.10 per Kg. (as against the average price of about 7.50 per Kg. for the actual confectionery) to the various small buyers, who usually melt the same to extract sugar for the purpose of preparing cheap syrups used in preparation of low-grade sweetmeats. The said scrap is not known or sold in the market as "confectionery" nor is the same covered by any of the items in the Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). 2. The said scrap is not edible or sold for consumption as such. Between the periods of 19th April, 1968 and 30th June, 1971 the petitioners cleared a total quantity of about 91,40,000 Kgs. of the said scraps which were accumul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... On or about 14th September, 1972, the petitioners preferred an appeal to the respondent No. 3 against the said order of the respondent No. 2 dated 3rd July, 1972. The hearing of the said appeal was concluded on the 25th November, 1972. On or about 21st December, 1972, the petitioners were served with an order passed by respondent No. 3 dated 8th December, 1972 wherein the Collector held that the confectionery in question was liable to excises under Tariff Item 1A of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act. ******* 3. Mr. Bajoria, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that the scrap obtained in course of manufacture of confectionery is not "confectionery" within the meaning of item 1A of the First Schedule ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the taxing authority to determine the head or entry in tariff Schedule under which any particular commodity fell; but if in doing so, these authorities adopted a construction which no reasonable person could adopt i.e. if the construction is perverse then it is a case in which the Court is competent to interfere (vide Collector of Customs, Madras v. K. Ganga Satty, A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1319; V.V. Iyer of Bombay v. Jasjit Singh, Collector of Customs, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 1941). 6. Mr. Sanyal appearing on behalf of the respondents, contended that there was no item as "scrap of confectionery" in the Central Excise Tariff and the scrap confectionery was nothing but part of the main confectionery liable to excise duty. According to Mr. Sanyal, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the instant case, if these scraps are broken parts of the boiled sweets, certainly, it comes within the definition of "confectionery" and excise duty is liable to be paid. But it is the case of petitioners throughout that the scraps are obtained in course of manufacture and not out of manufacture of confectionery. Appellate Collector's findings that basically these scraps remains as boiled sweets, it is sold as confectionery; these are suitably processed, hygienically packed and marketed in the same description as mother product, are based on without any evidence. The Collector is required to find out whether these scraps are parts of the product viz. confectionery manufactured by the petitioners. If the raw materials undergone some change ....