JUDGMENT
G.R. Sharma
1. After hearing the arguments adduced by Shri B.N.Chattopadhyay, ld.consultant for the appelicant and Shri A.K.Chattopadhyay, ld.DR for the Revenue we weive the predeposit of duty and penalty and proceed to decide the appeal itself as there was only a short point involved and the short point itself was covered squarely by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Hyderabad v. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co.Ltd.-1996(83)ELT 3.
2. The disputes arose on account of the issue of notfn. No. 17/98 dt.18.7.98 whereunder duty became payable on the process of decoration. The appellants in the instant case purchased table wares from the market and were decorating it. The department alleged that since the goods were cleared on or after 18.7.98 duty shall be payable on the goods in terms of the Apex Court order in the case of Walass Flour Mills Co.Ltd. v. CCE-1989(44)ELT 598. The appellants contended that it is not the day of clearance of the goods which makes the goods liable to duty, but it is the day of manufacture of the goods and since the goods were manufactured before 18.7.98 therefore their case shall be covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Hyderabad v. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co.Ltd.. It was argued by the consultant for the appellant that the ratio of the decision of Vazir Sultan’s case squarely overs their case inasmuch as the table wires decorated by them, the process of decoration was undertaken by them before the day of issue of notification i.e. 18.7.98.
3. On careful consideration of the two decisions of the Apex Court i.e. the decision relied upon by the department passed on Walass Flour Mills Co.Ltd. and the decisions cited and relied upon by the appellant in the case of Vazir Sultan Tobacco we find that the issue is covered by the decision of Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co.Ltd. and not by the decision in the case of Vilash Flour Mills Co.Ltd.. In these circumstances we hold that since the goods were decorated before 18.7.98 therefore no duty shall be chargeable on these goods. As it is the day of manufacture and not the day of clearance for determining the excisability of the goods. Since in the instant case the goods were not excisable before 18.7.98 therefore the demand of duty on these goods is not sustainable in law. Accordingly the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed, Consequently relief, if any, shall be admissible to the appellants in accordance with law.
Dictated in the court.