Ceakay Rubber Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Cochin - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
.....drawback, rebate etc. should not be treated as adjustment (credited) to cost of purchase or manufacture of goods. they should be treated as separate items of revenue or income and accounted for accordingly. analyzing the concept of remission of duty drawback and depb, the remission of duty is on account of the statutory/policy provisions in the customs act/ scheme (s) framed by the government of india. in the circumstances, profits derived by way of such incentives did not fall within the expression profits derived from industrial undertaking in section 80-ib. depb/duty drawback are incentives which flow from the schemes framed by central government or from section 75 of the customs act, 1962, hence, incentives profits are not profits derived from the eligible business under section..........is whether the provisions of rule 9(2) were properly attracted to the appellants' case. 2. the majority view of the tribunal was that the appellants had not even disclosed the manufacture and user of the article in question, though classification lists had been filed in relation to other articles manufactured by them; this, despite the fact that the relevant form required that particulars of other goods produced or manufactured should be set out. eight articles were listed but there was no mention of the article in question. the majority, therefore, took the view that this was a clear case on facts that even the manufacture of the article or its user - was not brought to the notice of the excise authorities. 3. no doubt, the learned single member took a different view, having regard.....

Judgment:
ORDER

S.P. Bharucha and K. Venkataswami, JJ

1. The question in this appeal against the judgment of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal is whether the provisions of Rule 9(2) were properly attracted to the appellants' case.

2. The majority view of the Tribunal was that the appellants had not even disclosed the manufacture and user of the article in question, though classification lists had been filed in relation to other articles manufactured by them; this, despite the fact that the relevant form required that particulars of other goods produced or manufactured should be set out. Eight articles were listed but there was no mention of the article in question. The majority, therefore, took the view that this was a clear case on facts that even the manufacture of the article or its user - was not brought to the notice of the Excise authorities.

3. No doubt, the learned Single member took a different view, having regard to his reading of the findings of the Appellate Collector and certain pleadings in a writ petition between the parties in the Kerala High Court.

4. We will not go into questions of fact. The majority view of the Tribunal, based upon material, being that there had been clandestine removal of the article in question, the provisions of Rule 9(1) were breached and, therefore, a notice under Rule 9(2) was competent.

5. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed, with no order as to costs.