TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1982 (7) TMI 88
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r concern under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The contents of the above noted notification are as under : "MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Revenue) NOTIFICATION Central Excises New Delhi, the 24th April, 1962 G.S.R. 531. - In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule(l) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, as in force in India and as applied to the State of Pondicherry, the Central Government hereby exempts rayon or artificial silk fabrics falling under Item No. 22 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) and specified in column (2) of the Table hereto annexed from so much of the duty as is mentioned in the corresponding entry in column (3) thereof : TABLE Sr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lain rollers." [No. 64/64-F. 15/2/64-CX II] N.B. Sanjana, Under Secy." 2. The claim of the petitioner is that since it was not manufacturing any rayon or artificial silk fabrics but was only engaged in dyeing and printing rayon and artificial silk fabrics which admittedly they were doing with the help of steam, they were neither liable nor did they pay any excise duty till the issuance of notification Annexure P-3. According to the petitioner, it was for the first time vice Annexure P-3 that the expression 'processed' was defined to include all processes which are ordinarily carried on with the aid of power or steam. Its specific case is that it was not engaged in the processing of rayon or artificial silk fabrics with the aid o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity is discriminatory, and (iii) that the claim of the respondent authorities is barred by time in view of the provisions of Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules. 4. The stand of the respondent authorities is that though notification, Annexure P-3, purports to have been issued by way of an amendment of notification Annexure P-1, yet the former is only a clarification of the later and the case of the petitioner is governed by Rule 10(a) of the Central Excise Rules so far as the question of limitation is concerned. It is also explained in reply to the assertions made by the petitioner in paragraph 13 of the petition disclosing differential or discriminatory treatment meted out to it that the cases referred to by the petitioner were entir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ings it is abundantly established that the Excise authorities throughout the Indian Union understood the contents of Annexure P-1 to be that excise duty is leviable to the extent mentioned therein only on those rayon and artificial silk fabrics which were processed with the aid of power or goods which had either been dyed or printed without the aid of power or with steam, were not considered to be processed fabrics. It was this situation which necessitated the issuance of Annexure P-3 thereby to include within the scope of 'processed fabrics', rayon and artificial silk fabrics which hen been dyed or printed with the aid of steam. If that were not so, then the issuance of Annexure P-3 is totally meaningless. The submission of Mr. Brar, learn....