The first respondent had manufactured steel wires out of the imported steel wire rods and had substantially removed them from their manufacturing premises between the period May 4, 1962 and June 21, 1963.
70 of 1962 dated April 24, 1962 issued Under Rule 8 1 of the Central Excise Rules hereinafter to be referred as the Rules , certain exemptions were granted By another numberification No.
There was a demand by the Inspector of Central Excise on July 6, 1962 for further payment at the rate of Rs.
There is numbercontroversy that at the time of clearance of the said steel wires, the same were assessed to duty which was paid and thereafter the first respondent was permitted to clear and remove them from their manufacturing permises.
39.35 per metric tonnes But on representations made by the first respondent to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, the numberice dated July 6, 1962 was withdrawn.
The balance appears to have been purchased by the first respondent from the Iron and Steel Controller, Calcutta, prior to April 24, 1962.
1,69,258.20 being additional excise duty stated to be payable by them on the goods already cleared The first respondent protested against this demand.
Item No.
Out of this quantity 1173 Metric Tonnes had been imported and duly cleared from the customs prior to April 24, 1962.
The respondents filed miscellaneous petition No.
26AA was inserted in the schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 hereinafter to be referred as the Act whereby certain iron and steel products specified therein were made subject to excise duty.
The first respondent is a public limited companypany incorporated under the Companies Act, who manufactures steel wires On April 24, 1962 they had on hand 4077 Metric Tonnes of imported steel wire rods.
No excise duty was leviable on these rods or steel wires.
131 of 1964 quashing the numberice dated November 9, 1965 issued Under Rule 10 A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
Nevertheless on November 9, 1963 the second appellant issued a numberice Under Rule 10A calling upon the first respondent to pay a sum of Rs.
The demand was also followed by a letter of the first appellant calling upon the first respondent to pay the additional duty demanded.
But the excise duty was leviable on steel ingots.
90 of 1962 issued under the same rule on May 10, 1962 certain iron and steel products were exempted.
By numberification No.
A. Vaidialingam, J. This appeal by certificate is directed against the order of the Bombay High Court dated December 9, 1966 in Appeal No.
110 of 1965 By the said judgment the Division Bench companyfirmed the order of the learned Single Judge in Miscellaneous petition No.
