{"id":100102,"date":"1987-08-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1987-08-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/modern-industrial-corporation-vs-collector-of-central-excise-ors-on-25-august-1987"},"modified":"2016-01-22T01:50:14","modified_gmt":"2016-01-21T20:20:14","slug":"modern-industrial-corporation-vs-collector-of-central-excise-ors-on-25-august-1987","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/modern-industrial-corporation-vs-collector-of-central-excise-ors-on-25-august-1987","title":{"rendered":"Modern Industrial Corporation vs Collector Of Central Excise & Ors on 25 August, 1987"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Modern Industrial Corporation vs Collector Of Central Excise & Ors on 25 August, 1987<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1987 AIR 2174, \t\t 1987 SCR (3)1068<\/div>\n
Author: M Rangnath<\/div>\n
Bench: Misra Rangnath<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMODERN INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT25\/08\/1987\n\nBENCH:\nMISRA RANGNATH\nBENCH:\nMISRA RANGNATH\nDUTT, M.M. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1987 AIR 2174\t\t  1987 SCR  (3)1068\n 1987 SCC  Supl.  374\t  JT 1987 (3)\t394\n 1987 SCALE  (2)424\n\n\nACT:\n    Central   Excise  and  Salt\t Act,  1944:  ss.   35-L   &\n36(2)\/Excise Tariff, Item No. 17(2)--Excise duty--Effect  of\nNotification No.68\/76 dated 16.3.1976---Manufacture of flock\npaper--Process\tof  screen printing carried  on--Benefit  of\nNotification----Whether available.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The\t Notification No. 68\/76 dated March 16, 1976  issued\nby the Central Government exempted converted types of papers\ncommonly  known\t as imitation flint papers obtained  by\t one\nside  of paper being subjected to printing of  colour  irre-\nspective  of  the fact whether or not such paper  is  subse-\nquently\t varnished or glazed by chemicals or  embossed,\t and\nfailing under item 17(2) of Excise Tarrif, if it was  proved\nthat the appropriate duty of excise has already been paid in\nrespect of the paper used in their manufacture.\n    The appellant registered as small scale industry,  which\nbuys  white  paper on which duty had already been  paid\t and\nmanufactures  flock  paper out of it by\t a  manual  process,\nsought\texemption from payment of duty under  the  aforesaid\nnotification.  His claim was rejected by the Assistant\tCol-\nlector. That order was set aside by the Appellate  Collector\nwho  took  the\tview that the wording  of  the\tnotification\nshowed\tthat as long as the one side of the paper  has\tbeen\nprinted with the colour whatever other process is undertaken\nof further polishing or glazing etc. is immaterial, and that\nin this case the first operation of printing of one side  of\nthe  paper with colour has been established. Thereafter\t the\nmatter\twent before the Customs, Excise and  Gold  (Control)\nAppellate  Tribunal  under s. 36(2) of the Salt\t Act,  1944,\nwhich  found  that printing is not only\t word  printing,  it\nextends\t to  numerous other processes whereby a\t surface  is\ncoated\tor  coloured or is given an imprint,  to  represent,\nreproduce, cover, decorate etc. and it is not just ink\tthat\nis  used for printing. Since in its opinion in\tthe  instant\ncase,  there was no colour printing it set aside the  Appel-\nlate order.\n     Allowing the appeal under s. 35-L of the Central Excise\nand Salt Act, 1942, the Court,\n   1069\n    HELD: The process carried on by the appellant is covered\nby  the Notification No. 68\/76 dated March 16, 1976  and  it\nis, therefore, not liable to pay any duty. [1074G]\n    The purpose of the notification is that the paper  which\nwould  have  otherwise\tfallen under Item  17(2)  of  Excise\nTariff would, if covered by the notification, become  exempt\nfrom  duty. The words used therein make it clear that  irre-\nspective  of  the fact whether or not such paper  is  subse-\nquently\t varnished  or glazed by chemicals or  embossed,  it\nwould  be entitled to the benefit of the  notification.\t The\nword 'subsequently' makes it clear that the process need not\nbe simultaneous. The Tribunal failed to notice this  aspect.\n[1073FG, 1074F]\n    The\t Tribunal  rightly indicated that printing  did\t not\nrequire\t ink and many other processes would also be  covered\nby  the term printing. The appellant has been pleading\tfrom\nthe  very beginning that the process carried on by  it\tcon-\nsists  of  a colour printing on one side of the\t paper.\t The\nTribunal has further recorded a finding that the appellant's\nprocess\t is  to paste one side of the  paper  with  adhesive\nmaterial.  Whether adhesive material is mixed to  colour  or\ncolour\tis mixed with adhesive does not make any  difference\nso  long  as a process of screen printing is carried  on  to\ncolour the paper on one side. The fact of screen printing is\naccepted  by respondents and that has been the case  of\t the\nappellant. The Appellate Collector was, therefore, right  in\nholding\t that the appellant was entitled to the\t benefit  of\nthe notification. [1074DE, 1071D]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal\t No.4534  of
\n1984.\n<\/p>\n
    From  the Order No. C-496 dated 23.7. 1984 of  the\tCus-
\ntoms,  Excise  and Gold (Control)  Appellate  Tribunal,\t New
\nDelhi in Appeal No.1117 of 1980—(C).\n<\/p>\n
    Harish  N.\tSalve, Ravinder Narain, P.K.  Ram  and\tD.N.
\nMishra for the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
    Govind Das, Mrs. Sushma Suri and R.P. Srivastava for the
\nRespondents.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nRANGANATH MISRA, J. This appeal under Section 35-L of the
\n1070<\/span>
\nCentral Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (hereafter referred to  as
\nthe  ‘Act ) is directed against the Appellate order  of\t the
\nCustoms,  Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal.\t The
\nappellant buys white paper from the market on which duty has
\nalready\t been paid and manufactures flock paper out  of\t it.
\nAccording to the appellant it is registered as a Small Scale
\nIndustry  with\tthe Directorate of Industry,  Government  of
\nMaharashtra and employs nine workers in all. The process  of
\nconversion  of paper into flock paper is said to be as\tfol-
\nlow:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Solution\t of P.V.A. Emulsion  thickened\twith
\n\t      c.m.c.  and coloured with dyes is\t applied  on
\n\t      one  side of paper manually with the  help  of
\n\t      hand-made\t screen; then flock is sprinkled  by
\n\t      hand with the help of man-made sheeves. There-
\n\t      after  paper is put on dryers for\t drying\t and
\n\t      finally when the paper is dried extra flock is
\n\t      removed  manually by tapping with fingers\t and
\n\t      the paper becomes ready.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    The appellant had made it clear to the Assistant Collec-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
tor  that  it had no coating or laminating machine  and\t the
\nprocess\t was essentially manual. It claimed the\t benefit  of
\nNotification No. 68\/76-CE issued by the Central\t Government.
\nThe  Assistant\tCollector  issued a show  cause\t notice\t and
\nrejected  the claim of the appellant after cause  was  shown
\nand  by order dated 27th of July 1979, held that the  appel-
\nlant should take out the requisite excise licence and  start
\npaying central excise duty on flock paper under Tariff\tItem
\nNo. 17(2) of the Central Excise Tariff. He also directed the
\nappellant to pay the duty for a period of five years preced-
\ning  the  date of issue of the show cause  notice.  A  small
\npenalty was also imposed. The appellant carried an appeal to
\nthe  Appellate Collector against the aforesaid order who  by
\nhis order dated 4th of October. 1979, held:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “At  the\ttime of\t hearing  they\t(appellants)
\n\t      produced\ta piece of flock paper\tmanufactured
\n\t      by  them,\t and submitted that  if\t this  flock
\n\t      paper  was  put into the glass of\t water,\t the
\n\t      flocking material would disappear and thereaf-
\n\t      ter it would be seen that the paper which\t has
\n\t      been  used  for this purpose is  only  printed
\n\t      with  the colour on one side.  The  experiment
\n\t      was  performed  in my office and it  was\tseen
\n\t      that the paper was printed with colour on\t one
\n\t      side  and\t the other side remained  as  it  is
\n\t      after the flock material has been fixed to it.
\n\t      The appellants submitted that their appeal may
\n\t      be  decided without a personal hearing as\t any
\n\t      delay  in personal hearing would cause them  a
\n\t      great hardship and that they
\n\t      1071<\/span>
\n\t      being a small scale manufacturer their activi-
\n\t      ties have come to virtual halt because of this
\n\t      order of the Assistant Collector.
\n\t      I have gone through the appeal petition and  I
\n\t      find  that the Assistant Collector has  agreed
\n\t      that  one\t side of the paper  is\tcoloured  by
\n\t      printing\twith colour, but since the  flocking
\n\t      material\thad  been stuck to this\t paper,\t the
\n\t      Assistant\t Collector has held it to  be  flock
\n\t      paper and demanded the duty on it. The wording
\n\t      of the Notification No. 68\/76 as amended under
\n\t      Sr.  No. 3A(ii) clearly show that as  long  as
\n\t      the  one\tside of the paper has  been  printed
\n\t      with  the\t colour whatever  other\t process  is
\n\t      undertaken  of  further polishing\t or  glazing
\n\t      etc.  is\timmaterial. In this case  the  first
\n\t      operation is that of printing one side of\t the
\n\t      paper  with colour which has been\t established
\n\t      beyond  doubt by the appellants. What  further
\n\t      process is done on this paper is immaterial as
\n\t      glazing  and embossing etc. have been  allowed
\n\t      under  this  notification to be  done  to\t the
\n\t      coloured\tside of the paper. In view of  this,
\n\t      the  order of the Assistant Collector  is\t set
\n\t      aside  so\t far as the classification  of\tthis
\n\t      material is concerned  …..  ”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t  On 5.9.1980, a show cause notice  purport-
\n\t      ing  to be under Section 36(2) of the Act\t was
\n\t      issued by the Central Government to the appel-
\n\t      lant which inter alia stated:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “On examination of the records of the case the
\n\t      Central Government are tentatively of the view
\n\t      that  the order of the Appellate Collector  is
\n\t      not proper, legal and correct. The process  of
\n\t      manufacture  of  flocked proper  cannot  prima
\n\t      facie be considered to be equivalent to print-
\n\t      ing  of colour inasmuch as use of ink  appears
\n\t      to  be  inevitably linked up with\t a  printing
\n\t      process  as understood and no ink was used  in
\n\t      the particular process. Hence it would  appear
\n\t      that  the\t flocked paper manufactured  by\t the
\n\t      assessee would be perhaps not eligible for the
\n\t      benefit of notification No. 68\/76.”
\n\t      “The  Central Government, therefore, in  exer-
\n\t      cise  of the powers vested in them under\tsec-
\n\t      tion 36(2) of the Central Excise and Salt Act,
\n\t      1944,  propose to set aside the order  of\t the
\n\t      Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay,
\n\t      or  to pass such order as is deemed fit  after
\n\t      consideration of the submissions of the asses-
\n\t      see  …….  “<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      1072<\/span><\/p>\n
    The\t appellant showed cause and with the change  in\t the
\nscheme\tof the Act, the matter came before the Tribunal\t for
\ndisposal.  Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the  appellant,
\ntwo  contentions  were raised: firstly,\t the  Collector\t was
\nright in holding that the benefit of the Central  Government
\nNotification was available to the appellant and secondly the
\nproceeding  was\t barred by limitation. The  Tribunal  found,
\nwith  reference to the opinion indicated in the\t show  cause
\nnotice, as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The Government of India was wrong to speak of
\n\t      ink  as inevitably linked up with\t a  printing
\n\t      process.\tThis is only the character  printing
\n\t      or  word\tprinting. But printing is  not\tonly
\n\t      word  printing; it extends to  numerous  other
\n\t      processes\t whereby  a  surface  is  coated  or
\n\t      coloured or is given an imprint, to represent,
\n\t      reproduce, cover, decorate etc. etc. and it is
\n\t      not just ink that is used for printing.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    It further found that the Appellate Collector was  wrong
\nin holding that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of
\nthe notification in question and concluded that there was no
\ncolour printing; it did not deal with the question of  limi-
\ntation and set aside the Appellate order.
\n    Both the aspects raised before the Tribunal are  reiter-
\nated before us in this appeal, namely,–\n<\/p>\n
    (1)\t The Appellate Collector was right and the  Tribunal
\nis  wrong in holding that the appellant was not entitled  to
\nthe benefit of the notification; and
\n    (2) The show cause notice was issued after the expiry of
\nthe period of limitation and, therefore, the Tribunal had no
\njurisdiction to reverse the order of the Collector.\n<\/p>\n
     The Notification No. 68\/76 dated 16.3. 1976, as far  as
\nrelevant. reads thus:<\/p>\n
Table
\nSl. No.\t    Description\t    Rate of Duty     Condition
\n(1)\t\t(2)\t     (3)\t       (4)\n<\/p>\n
1. …………………..\n<\/p>\n
2. …………………..\n<\/p>\n
3. …………………..\n<\/p>\n
   1073<\/span><\/p>\n
4. Following varieties of paper, namely:–\n<\/p>\n
(i)  ……………………\n<\/p>\n
(ii)  Converted types of\tNil  If it is proved to the
\n      paper commonly known\t     satisfaction of proper
\n      as imitation flint\t     officer that the app-\n<\/p>\n
      paper or leatherette\t     ropriate duty of
\n      paper or plastic coated\t     excise or additional
\n      paper, or by any other\t     duty leviable under
\n      name, obtained by one\t     section 2A of the
\n      side of paper being subjec-    Indian Tariff Act,
\n      ted to printing of colour,     1934 (32 of 1934), as
\n      with or without design,\t     the case may be, has
\n      irrespective of the fact\t     already been paid in
\n      whether or not such paper\t     respect of the paper
\n      is subsequently varnished\t     used in their manu-\n<\/p>\n
      or glazed by chemicals or\t     facture.\n      embossed, and falling\n      under sub-item (2) of the\n      aforesaid Item No. 17.\n(iii)  ........................\n\t\t\t\t      (underlining by us)\n<\/pre>\n
The appellant has throughout claimed that it buys duty\tpaid
\npaper  from  the  market and subjects one  side\t thereof  to
\ncolour\tprinting without design and while so printing  adhe-
\nsive  material is added to hold the spread of flocking\tdone
\nby hand. The extra flocking material is removed manually and
\nthe paper is ready. The notification is in wide terms; paper
\nby  any\t name  is intended to be covered by  it.  After\t the
\nprocess referred to is undertaken, irrespective of the\tfact
\nwhether\t or  not such paper is subsequently treated  in\t the
\nmanner\tindicated therein, the benefit appears to have\tbeen
\nintended to be made available. The purpose of the  notifica-
\ntion  is  that the paper which would have  otherwise  fallen
\nunder  Item 17(2) of Excise Tariff would, if covered by\t the
\nnotification,  becomes\texempt from duty.  In  an  affidavit
\nfiled in this Court, the respondent-department has stated:-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t“It  is further submitted  that\t the
\n\t      product  does  not merit classification  as  a
\n\t      paper ‘obtained by one side of paper subjected
\n\t      to printing of colour’ under notification\t No.
\n\t      68\/76-CE.\t It  is also submitted that  in\t the
\n\t      manufacture
\n\t      1074<\/span>
\n\t      of flocked paper the process of application of
\n\t      adhesive, coloured or otherwise to the surface
\n\t      of  the  base paper through a silk  screen  is
\n\t      printing\tof  adhesive  only and\tnot  one  of
\n\t      imparting\t colour. The paper obtained  immedi-
\n\t      ately after printing with adhesive coloured or
\n\t      otherwise is not a finished product itself  as
\n\t      in the case of papers envisaged in the notifi-
\n\t      cation.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    The\t learned counsel for the appellant produced a  sheet
\nof  flocked paper in court during hearing of the appeal.  We
\ncarried\t the  experiment as indicated in the  order  of\t the
\nAppellate Collector and found that the adhesive and flocking
\nmaterial got washed out and what remained was the base paper
\ncoloured on one side and white on the other. This is exactly
\nwhat the Appellate Collector had found.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t Tribunal  rightly indicated that printing  did\t not
\nrequire\t ink and many other processes would also be  covered
\nby  the term printing. The appellant has been pleading\tfrom
\nthe  very beginning that the process carried on by  it\tcon-
\nsists  of  a colour printing on one side of the\t paper.\t The
\nTribunal has recorded a finding that the appellant’s process
\nis  to paste one side of the paper with\t adhesive  material.
\nWhether\t adhesive material is mixed to colour or  colour  is
\nmixed with adhesive does not make any difference so long  as
\na  process  of screen printing is carried on to\t colour\t the
\npaper on one side. The counter-affidavit of the\t respondents
\nin  this  Court accepts the position that  there  is  screen
\nprinting and that has been the case of the appellant.
\n    The\t words used in the notification make it\t clear\tthat
\nirrespective of the fact whether or not such paper is subse-
\nquently\t varnished or glazed by chemicals or embossed  would
\nbe  entitled  to the benefit of the notification.  The\tword
\n‘subsequently’\tmakes it clear that the process need not  be
\nsimultaneous. The Tribunal failed to notice this aspect.
\n    We\tare of the view that the process carried on  by\t the
\nappellant  is covered by the notification and it is,  there-
\nfore,  not liable to pay any duty. We set aside the  finding
\nof the Tribunal and restore that of the Appellate Collector.
\nThe appeal is allowed. There would be no order for costs.\n<\/p>\n
P.S.S.\t\t\t\t\t\tAppeal\t al-\nlowed.\n1075<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Modern Industrial Corporation vs Collector Of Central Excise & Ors on 25 August, 1987 Equivalent citations: 1987 AIR 2174, 1987 SCR (3)1068 Author: M Rangnath Bench: Misra Rangnath PETITIONER: MODERN INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION Vs. RESPONDENT: COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT25\/08\/1987 BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH DUTT, M.M. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-100102","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nModern Industrial Corporation vs Collector Of Central Excise & Ors on 25 August, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/modern-industrial-corporation-vs-collector-of-central-excise-ors-on-25-august-1987\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Modern Industrial Corporation vs Collector Of Central Excise & Ors on 25 August, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/modern-industrial-corporation-vs-collector-of-central-excise-ors-on-25-august-1987\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1987-08-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-21T20:20:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/modern-industrial-corporation-vs-collector-of-central-excise-ors-on-25-august-1987#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/modern-industrial-corporation-vs-collector-of-central-excise-ors-on-25-august-1987\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Modern Industrial Corporation vs Collector Of Central Excise & Ors on 25 August, 1987\",\"datePublished\":\"1987-08-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-21T20:20:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/modern-industrial-corporation-vs-collector-of-central-excise-ors-on-25-august-1987\"},\"wordCount\":1887,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/modern-industrial-corporation-vs-collector-of-central-excise-ors-on-25-august-1987#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/modern-industrial-corporation-vs-collector-of-central-excise-ors-on-25-august-1987\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/modern-industrial-corporation-vs-collector-of-central-excise-ors-on-25-august-1987\",\"name\":\"Modern Industrial Corporation vs Collector Of Central Excise & Ors on 25 August, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1987-08-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-21T20:20:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/modern-industrial-corporation-vs-collector-of-central-excise-ors-on-25-august-1987#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/modern-industrial-corporation-vs-collector-of-central-excise-ors-on-25-august-1987\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/modern-industrial-corporation-vs-collector-of-central-excise-ors-on-25-august-1987#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Modern Industrial Corporation vs Collector Of Central Excise & Ors on 25 August, 1987\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Modern Industrial Corporation vs Collector Of Central Excise & Ors on 25 August, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/modern-industrial-corporation-vs-collector-of-central-excise-ors-on-25-august-1987","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Modern Industrial Corporation vs Collector Of Central Excise & Ors on 25 August, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/modern-industrial-corporation-vs-collector-of-central-excise-ors-on-25-august-1987","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1987-08-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-21T20:20:14+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/modern-industrial-corporation-vs-collector-of-central-excise-ors-on-25-august-1987#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/modern-industrial-corporation-vs-collector-of-central-excise-ors-on-25-august-1987"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Modern Industrial Corporation vs Collector Of Central Excise & Ors on 25 August, 1987","datePublished":"1987-08-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-21T20:20:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/modern-industrial-corporation-vs-collector-of-central-excise-ors-on-25-august-1987"},"wordCount":1887,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/modern-industrial-corporation-vs-collector-of-central-excise-ors-on-25-august-1987#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/modern-industrial-corporation-vs-collector-of-central-excise-ors-on-25-august-1987","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/modern-industrial-corporation-vs-collector-of-central-excise-ors-on-25-august-1987","name":"Modern Industrial Corporation vs Collector Of Central Excise & Ors on 25 August, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1987-08-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-21T20:20:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/modern-industrial-corporation-vs-collector-of-central-excise-ors-on-25-august-1987#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/modern-industrial-corporation-vs-collector-of-central-excise-ors-on-25-august-1987"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/modern-industrial-corporation-vs-collector-of-central-excise-ors-on-25-august-1987#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Modern Industrial Corporation vs Collector Of Central Excise & Ors on 25 August, 1987"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/100102","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=100102"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/100102\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=100102"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=100102"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=100102"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}