M/S. EASTERN DIECASTING INDUSTRY versus THE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTA

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 524 · Decided: 27-08-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. SEN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
M/S. EASTERN DIECASTING INDUSTRY 
v. 
. .. 
THE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTA 
AUGUST 27, 1997 
B 
[SUHAS C. SEN AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.] 
Central Excise Rules, 1944/Celltral Excise Tariff: 
Rule 173 Q!Tariff Items 26 A(ia), 27(a)(ii) and 68---Classification of 
C goods-Railway Overhead Equipment and fittings for Electric Trac-
tion-Manufacture comprising of Casting of molten metal into moulds as per 
specifications of Railways and included post casting operations also-Ad-
mitted by a statement made to this effect by a Director of Com-
pany-Tribunal's finding that goods manufactured are classifiable under 
Tariff Item 68---Finding of Tribunal calling for no interference as being 
D essentially finding off act based on evidence. 
The railway overhead equipments and fittings for electric traction 
manufactured by the appellant was classified under Item 68 and not as 
castings held by the Central Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal 
E (CEGAT). During the period 1979-80 to 1982-83, Notification No. 89/79 
dated 1.3.79 and Notification No. 105/80 dated 19.6.80 granted exemption 
to such articles upto the value of Rs. 30 lakhs in the current financial year 
if the value of clearances during the preceding financial year did not exceed 
to Rs. 30 Iakhs. The Department had on the basis of intelligence report 
F that the assessee was removing the goods without payment of duty, had 
ascertained the value of clearances of these goods for the period 1979-80 
to 1982-83 in the light of Notification No. 87/79 dated 1.3.79 and Notifica· 
tion No. 105/80 dated 19.6.80 and had held demand of duty of a sum of 
Rs.4,29,660.20 P. and also imposed penalty of a sum of Rs. one lakh under 
Section 173 Q of the Central Rules, 1944 on the basis that the value of 
G clearances during the period 1981-82 and 1982-83 exceeded the limit of Rs. 
30 Iakhs. The Tribunal, on appeal had upheld the order of the Collector 
in so far as the quantum of demand was concerned but had reduced the 
quantum of penalty to Rs. 25,000. The Tribunal agreeing with the appellant 
regarding double computation of value or raw materials, asked the Collec· 
H tor to verify this factual aspect on the basis of evidence of be produced by 
524 
r 
-
EASTERN DIECASTING INDUSTRYv. C.C.E. CALCUTTA [SEN, J.] 525 
the appellant, and thereafter decide whether the duty demanded would A 
need any modification. It was contended by the appellant that the castings 
made out of aluminium and copper supplied by the Railways remained 
castings even after the same was returned to the Railway after carrying 
out the manufacturing operations. It was submitted that what was received 
from railways was casting in crude form which was then processed by the B 
appellant. What was done according to the appellants was that copper, 
aluminium and tin were melted and cast into moulds according to the 
specifications of the Railways and that what was returned to the Railways 
was only castings converted into identifiable shapes. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : The finding of the Tribunal that the goods are classifiable 
under Item 68 is a finding of fact based on evidence and therefore does 
not warrant any interference. 
That the appellant after the casting was done, carried out post· 
casting operations such as fettling, grinding, dressing, machining and 
assembling with fasteners, stood further corroborated by the statement 
made by the Director of Company to this effect. [528-B] 
c 
D 
Vasantham Foundry v. Unio•z of India & Ors., !1995] 5 SCC 289, E 
referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1953 of 
1990. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.12.89 of the Customs Excise F 
and Gold (Control) Appellant Tribunal, New Delhi in A. No. E/2586/89-BI 
(Order No. 1 of 1990-BI). 
Ananat Haksar, K.K. Lahiri and Ejaz Maqbool for the Appellant. 
K.N. Bhatt, Additional Solicitor General, Ms. Survira Lal and P. G 
Parmeshwaran, (N.P) for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SEN, J. The facts of this case have been summarised by Customs, H 
... 
526 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT). The appellant-
Company manufactures railway overhead equipment and 
fittings for 
electric traction falling under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. Accord-
ing to the Department, the Central Excise Officers visited their factory on 
1.8.1983 on the basis of intelligence report that the appellant

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.