Standard Fireworks Industries Sivakasi & Anr. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Madurai.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos.2670-71 of 1985.
Petitioner: Standard Fireworks Industries Sivakasi & Anr.
Respondent: Collector of Central Excise, Madurai.
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos.2670-71 of 1985.
Judges: R.S.PATHAK, CJ. & RANGANATH MISRA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 17, 1987
Head Note:
CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALT ACT, 1944:
Section 35-L, Tariff Item No.68 to First Schedule – Notification No.179/77 dated 18-6-1977 – Factories Act, 1948; section 2(m) – Claim for Refund – Exemption from excise duty to goods falling under items No.68 where process of manufacture is carried on without the aid of power – Within the factories of the appellants no power was used for the manufacture of fireworks – Process of cutting the steel wire to size and special treatment of paper was carried on with the aid of power through outside people unconnected with the appellants – Requirement of Notification not satisfied to claim exemption from duty.
Held:
The notification purports to allow exemption from duty only when in relation to the manufacture of the goods no process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power. It is not disputed that the cutting of the steel wires or the treatment of paper is a process for the manufacture of goods in question. Since those processes were carried on with the aid of power though carried outside the factory, the requirement of the Notification would not be answered so as to entitle the appellants to exemption from duty. It is not necessary to refer to any authority inasmuch as on the analysis indicated above the claim for refund appeals to have been rightly rejected.
JUDGEMENT:
RANGANATH MISRA, J:
1. These appeals under section 35-L of the Central Excise and Salt Act of 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are directed against the decision of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, affirming the appellate order passed by the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, Madras.
2. The appellants are manufacturers of fireworks. Each of them claimed refund of duty on the footing that they were exempted from payment thereof under Notification No.179/77 dated 18.6.1977 as the goods manufactured by them were covered by Tariff Item No.68 and in relation to such manufacturers no process was ordinarily carried on with the aid of power. The claims for refund related to the period covering parts of 1977 and 1978 were rejected by the Assistant Collector and such rejection was upheld in appeal. Revisions directed against the appellate’s decision were filed before the Central Government which stood transferred to Tribunal for disposal in accordance with the amended law. The Exemption Notification read thus:-
“In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts all goods falling under Item No.68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) in or in relation to the manufacture of which no process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of powers, from whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon.”
3. Tariff Item 68 during the relevant period provided:-
“All other goods, not elsewhere specified, manufactured in a factory but excluding………”
The explanation under the item stated that the expression ‘factory’ carried the same meaning assigned to the word under section 2(m) of the Factories Act, 1948.
4. The Tribunal has found as a fact that the appellants were purchasing in bulk all materials required for their manufacturing operation and used to store them in godowns. Their materials covered papers, chemicals, iron fillings, coal, gums, steel wires etc. Steel wires used to be made over to different people unconnected with these appellants to be cut to size and paper used to be made over for being shredded into small strips and to be given special treatment for the purpose of manufacture of fireworks. After steel wires were out to size and the paper was processed the same were being returned to the factories of the appellants.
5. it is not in dispute that within the factories of the appellants for the manufacture of fireworks power was not used; it is equally not in dispute that power was used for shredding of paper and cutting of steel wires.
6. The claims for refund advanced by the appellants have been rejected on the footing that they are not covered by the Notification of 1976 inasmuch as cutting of wires and conditioning of paper have been carried with the aid of power. The learned counsel for the appellants has strenously contended that the statutory authorities under the Act and the Tribunal have overlooked the fact that in Item 68 at the relevant time the words “manufactured in a factory” occurred. We did not think that there is any substance in this contention. The notification purports to allow exemption from duty only when in relation to the manufacture of the goods no process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power. It is not disputed that the cutting of the steel wires or the treatment of paper is a process for the manufacture of goods in question. Since those processes were carried on with the aid of power though carried outside the factory, the requirement of the Notification would not be answered so as to entitle the appellants to exemption from duty. It is not necessary to refer to any authority inasmuch as on the analysis indicated above the claim for refund appeals to have been rightly rejected.
7. The appellants are not entitled to claim any refund as they are not covered by the Exemption Notification and the appeals are, therefore, dismissed but without any order for costs.
1. These appeals under section 35-L of the Central Excise and Salt Act of 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are directed against the decision of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, affirming the appellate order passed by the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, Madras.
2. The appellants are manufacturers of fireworks. Each of them claimed refund of duty on the footing that they were exempted from payment thereof under Notification No.179/77 dated 18.6.1977 as the goods manufactured by them were covered by Tariff Item No.68 and in relation to such manufacturers no process was ordinarily carried on with the aid of power. The claims for refund related to the period covering parts of 1977 and 1978 were rejected by the Assistant Collector and such rejection was upheld in appeal. Revisions directed against the appellate’s decision were filed before the Central Government which stood transferred to Tribunal for disposal in accordance with the amended law. The Exemption Notification read thus:-
“In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts all goods falling under Item No.68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) in or in relation to the manufacture of which no process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of powers, from whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon.”
3. Tariff Item 68 during the relevant period provided:-
“All other goods, not elsewhere specified, manufactured in a factory but excluding………”
The explanation under the item stated that the expression ‘factory’ carried the same meaning assigned to the word under section 2(m) of the Factories Act, 1948.
4. The Tribunal has found as a fact that the appellants were purchasing in bulk all materials required for their manufacturing operation and used to store them in godowns. Their materials covered papers, chemicals, iron fillings, coal, gums, steel wires etc. Steel wires used to be made over to different people unconnected with these appellants to be cut to size and paper used to be made over for being shredded into small strips and to be given special treatment for the purpose of manufacture of fireworks. After steel wires were out to size and the paper was processed the same were being returned to the factories of the appellants.
5. it is not in dispute that within the factories of the appellants for the manufacture of fireworks power was not used; it is equally not in dispute that power was used for shredding of paper and cutting of steel wires.
6. The claims for refund advanced by the appellants have been rejected on the footing that they are not covered by the Notification of 1976 inasmuch as cutting of wires and conditioning of paper have been carried with the aid of power. The learned counsel for the appellants has strenously contended that the statutory authorities under the Act and the Tribunal have overlooked the fact that in Item 68 at the relevant time the words “manufactured in a factory” occurred. We did not think that there is any substance in this contention. The notification purports to allow exemption from duty only when in relation to the manufacture of the goods no process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power. It is not disputed that the cutting of the steel wires or the treatment of paper is a process for the manufacture of goods in question. Since those processes were carried on with the aid of power though carried outside the factory, the requirement of the Notification would not be answered so as to entitle the appellants to exemption from duty. It is not necessary to refer to any authority inasmuch as on the analysis indicated above the claim for refund appeals to have been rightly rejected.
7. The appellants are not entitled to claim any refund as they are not covered by the Exemption Notification and the appeals are, therefore, dismissed but without any order for costs.
