PREMIER TYRES LTD. versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, COCHIN

Citation: [1987] 2 S.C.R. 198 · Decided: 09-02-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

' ' 
-.J-· 
-= . 
PREMIER TYRES LTD. v. COLL. OF C. EXCISE !REDDY, J.] 
199 
HELD: 1. The Tribunal was right in taking the view that effect A 
had to be given first to the notification dated June 16, 1977 and then to 
the notification dated July 14, 1978. The words "read with any relevant 
notification issued under the said sub-rule (I) of Rule 8 in force for the 
time being" super-added by the latter notification show conclusively 
that the earlier notification dealing with exemption to the extent of the B 
duty paid on the inputs which was already in force had first to be given 
effect to. [201E-G] 
Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Madras Rubber Factory 
· Limited, Civil Appeal No. 3195of1979, distinguished. 
2. There is no general principle that there can be no 'double C 
taxation' in the levy of excise duty. The Court may lean in favour of a 
construction which will avoid double taxation, but in the instant case there 
does not appear to be any lean question of construction at all. l202B-C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 943 
Of 1986. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 4th July, 1985 of the Appel-
D 
J. 
late Tribunal in Appeal no. 244 of 1985-D. 
.-
L.M. Singhvi and K.K. Bhaduri for the appellant. 
E 
A Subba Rao and Ms. S. Relan for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
CHINN APP A REDDY, J. This appeal is directed against a judg-
F 
ment of the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal in 
regard to the manner and sequence in which certain notifications 
under Rule 8 Sub-rule (1) of the Central Excise Rules granting exemp-
tions from duty have to be worked out. By a notification dated August 
l, 1974 the Central Government, in exercise of its powers under sub-
rule( 1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules exempted. 
"Tyres for motor vehicles falling under sub-item(l) of Item 
No. 16 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt 
Act, 1944(1 of 1944) from so much of the duty of excise 
leviable thereon as is in excess of fifty-five per cent Ad 
G 
valorell!". 
H 
200 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(19871 2 S.C.R. 
A Thereafter on June 16, 1977 another notification was issued in the 
\ •. 
following terms: 
B 
c 
D 
"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 excisable goods (herein-
after referrnd to as the "said goods") on which the duty of 
excise is leviable and in the manufacture of which any 
goods falling under Item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the 
Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) (hereinafter 
referred to as the inputs) have been used, from so much of 
the duty of excise leviable thereon as is equivalent to the 
duty of excise already paid on the inputs. Notification No. 
205i77 dated 28.9.77, subject to the conditions that the 
manufacturer furnishes to ·the proper Officer a statement 
showing the quantity of the inputs used in the manufacture 
of every unit of the said goods. 
Provided that where the duty of excise leviable on the sai-'1 
goods is less than ihe amount of duty of excise paid on the 
inputs the extent of exemption shall be restricted to the 
duty of excise on the said goods." 
A Further notification was issued on July 14, 1978 and this was in the 
E 
following terms: 
F 
G 
H 
"In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule(!) of rule 
8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Govern-
ment hereby exempts tyres and tubes excluding flaps falling 
under Item No. 16(1) and 18(3) of the First Schedule to the 
Central Excist:s and Salt Act, 1944 (I of 1944) (hereinafter 
referred to as the specified goods) from so much of the duty 
of excise leviable thereon (read with any relevant notifica-
tion issued under the said sub-rule(l) of rule 8 and in force 
for the time being) as is in excess of 
(a) eighty-sevtm and a half per cent, of such duty, if pr-0-
duced in any factory which commenced production of the 
specified goods for the first time earlier than the !st day of 
April 1976: and 
(b) Seventy-five per cent of such duty, if produced in any 
factory which commenced production . of the specified 
-j 
•, 
PREMIER TYRES LTD. v. COLL. OF C. EXCISE [REDDY. J.] 
201 
goods for the first time on or after the !st day of April, A 
1976, 
subject to the conditions that:-
**************************************************** 
************************************************** ,, 
There is no controversy regarding evaluation

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