AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H. Suresh, J.—The petitioner, company, has a manufacturing unit at Atlas Mills Compound, Reay Road, Bombay. Amongst other items they were manufacturing elevator buckets, water filters, engineering goods etc. The goods they manufactured would fall under residuary item No. 68, as it stood then for the purpose of excise duty. They claimed that they were entitled to a concession of a certain notification bearing No. 89/79 dated March 1, 1979 for the year 1979-80, and upto June 18, 1980. It appears that there were two other concerns known as M/s. Ravi Enterprises and M/s. Alospin. For some reason or the other the department, particularly the Assistant Collector of Central Excise thought that the petitioners were not entitled to concession because according to him the other two concerns also were carrying on the business of manufacturing the same items which will have to be coupled together with the manufacturing activities of the petitioners. It is on that basis he stated that the petitioners as also the other two companies would not be entitled to the benefit of notification No. 89 of 1979.
Fortunately, for the petitioners this view taken by the Assistant Collector, was negatived by the Collector of Central Excise, who, by his order dated January 23, 1982, expressly stated that the two companies are separate legal entities and it is not possible to combine the activities of the two other companies with that of the petitioner''s. He also stated that as a result of that the petitioner-company would be entitled to the benefit of the said notification.
It appears that this order dated January 23, 1982 of the Collector was in respect of the goods seized by the department on February 2, 1979, on the basis that the petitioner company had not paid the duty in respect of the goods falling under item No. 68 during the year 1978-79. Though the Collector held that coupling was not proper, however, he would not agree that the seizure of the goods was wrong. Instead, he directed that the goods ought to have been confiscated and the petitioners were liable for fine and penalty. Though this Collector''s order had concluded the question of coupling the three companies and the order held that such coupling was wrong still, since the order purported to continue seizure, the petitioners took the matter before the Board of Central Excise and Customs. The Board by its order dated April 14, 1982 held that the seizure as also fine, confiscation and penalty were all wrong and the Board ordered that the same should be set aside.
In view of these happenings, it is not necessary for me to go into the details of the case. The impugned order, therefore, must necessarily go.
I therefore pass the following order : The impugned orders dated August 6, 1980 and August 17, 1981 stand quashed and the petitioners would be entitled to the benefit of notification No. 89/79 dated March 1, 1979 for the period from April I, 1979 to June 18, 1980.
In view of this I further declare that, it is not open to (he respondents to couple the other two companies viz. M/s. Ravi Enterprises and M/s. Alospin with the petitioners'' company for the purpose of excise duly.
The bank guarantees furnished by the petitioners in pursuance of this Court''s order shall stand discharged, and the same shall be returned to the petitioners within four weeks from today.
The respondents will also pay the costs to the petitioners.