Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Director of Inspector, C.C.E. and Another
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeals No. 3328 of 1981 with No. 3300 of 1981
Petitioner: Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd.
Respondent: Director of Inspector, C.C.E. and Another
Apeal: Civil Appeals No. 3328 of 1981 with No. 3300 of 1981
Judges: SUHAS C. SEN, K. VENKATASWAMI & V.N.KHARE, JJ.
Date of Judgment: May 08, 1981
Head Note:
EXCISE LAW
Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944:
Item 17, Section 3 – Tax Credit – Availability – Excise duty in such cases – Held that tax credit has to be continued to the Central Excise and Salt Act only.
Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944:
Item 17, Section 3 – Tax Credit – Availability – Excise duty in such cases – Held that tax credit has to be continued to the Central Excise and Salt Act only.
Tax Credit – Paper manufacturing – Finding of excess production in base year – Whether all types of papers are to be taken to-gether – Held that High Court’s view that base year production must be taken separately for
each type of paper as they are excisable when manufactured and are assessable under various Tariff entries separately, cannot be defaulted – Appeal dismissed.
Cases Reffered:
Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. Director of Inspection, Customs and Central Excise (1985 (2), SCC 719). (Para 1)
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. So far as this appeal is concerned, the question is whether the duty of excise whereof tax credit is available would be in respect of such duty of excise as is chargeable under the Central Excuses and Salt Act alone. The question has already been answered by this Court in the case of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. Director of Inspection, Customs and Central Excise (1985 (2), SCC 719). In that case, it was held that the tax credit has to be confined to the Central Excises and Salt Act only. In view of that this appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
C.A. No. 3300 of 19981
2. The facts of this case are not in dispute. The respondent Company is manufacturing various types of papers. The contention of the Department is that “paper” (all sorts) will include all sorts of papers manufactured by the company and all types of papers have to be taken together to find out whether the production made in the base year has been exceeded. The High Court has taken the view that the base year production must be taken separately for each type of paper manufactured by the company. The High Court has pointed out that the goods are excisable as and when produced and are assessable under various tariff entries separately. Therefore, each type of papers which are excisable separately will be entitled to relief also sepa-rately.
3. We do not find any defect in the reasoning of the High Court. We dismiss this appeal. No order as to costs.
1. So far as this appeal is concerned, the question is whether the duty of excise whereof tax credit is available would be in respect of such duty of excise as is chargeable under the Central Excuses and Salt Act alone. The question has already been answered by this Court in the case of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. Director of Inspection, Customs and Central Excise (1985 (2), SCC 719). In that case, it was held that the tax credit has to be confined to the Central Excises and Salt Act only. In view of that this appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
C.A. No. 3300 of 19981
2. The facts of this case are not in dispute. The respondent Company is manufacturing various types of papers. The contention of the Department is that “paper” (all sorts) will include all sorts of papers manufactured by the company and all types of papers have to be taken together to find out whether the production made in the base year has been exceeded. The High Court has taken the view that the base year production must be taken separately for each type of paper manufactured by the company. The High Court has pointed out that the goods are excisable as and when produced and are assessable under various tariff entries separately. Therefore, each type of papers which are excisable separately will be entitled to relief also sepa-rately.
3. We do not find any defect in the reasoning of the High Court. We dismiss this appeal. No order as to costs.
