{"id":106551,"date":"1987-02-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1987-02-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mysore-rolling-mills-p-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-18-february-1987"},"modified":"2019-02-16T01:55:58","modified_gmt":"2019-02-15T20:25:58","slug":"mysore-rolling-mills-p-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-18-february-1987","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mysore-rolling-mills-p-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-18-february-1987","title":{"rendered":"Mysore Rolling Mills (P) Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, &#8230; on 18 February, 1987"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mysore Rolling Mills (P) Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, &#8230; on 18 February, 1987<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1987 AIR 1488, \t\t  1987 SCR  (2) 318<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M Rangnath<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Misra Rangnath<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nMYSORE ROLLING MILLS (P) LTD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELGAUM\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT18\/02\/1987\n\nBENCH:\nMISRA RANGNATH\nBENCH:\nMISRA RANGNATH\nPATHAK, R.S. (CJ)\n\nCITATION:\n 1987 AIR 1488\t\t  1987 SCR  (2) 318\n 1987 SCC  (1) 695\t  JT 1987 (1)\t476\n 1987 SCALE  (1)382\n\n\nACT:\n    Central  Excise and Salt Act 1944\/Central Excise  Rules,\n1944  Sections\t4,  11A\t &amp;  35L\/Rules  6,  9  &amp;\t  10--Excise\nduty--Handling\tcharges\t to  be\t added\tfor  computation  of\nduty--Manufacturer   suppressing  disclosure   of   handling\ncharges--What is period of limitation applicable.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    Between  September 1974 and May 1977 the  appellant\t re-\nceived\tmore than 6 lakh rupees from its customers by  issue\nof  debit  notes over and above the amounts  received  under\nregular\t invoices for manufacturing aluminium wire  rods  on\njob basis on their behalf.\n    The Excise Authorities issued notice under Rule 10(i)(c)\nof the Central Excise Rules, 1944, to the appellant to\tshow\ncause why the aforesaid amount called as \"handling  charges\"\nshould\tnot be added to the invoice price  and\tdifferential\nduty recovered. The Assistant Collector confirmed the demand\nafter  cause  was shown which was upheld  by  the  Appellate\nCollector and confirmed by the Tribunal.\n    In the appeal to this Court, on behalf of the  appellant\nit  was contended; (1) that on the basis of Rule 6(b)(i)  of\nthe  Valuation Rules the statutory levy price  of  aluminium\nshould be adopted as being the price of comparable goods and\nwith  effect from 1.10.75 the assessable value\tshould\thave\nbeen  fixed under proviso (ii) to s.4(1)(a) or s.4(1)(b)  at\nthe  same  amount,. (2) that Rs.60 which  was  collected  as\nhandling  charges was not to be taken into account for\tcom-\nputing\tduty and (3) that the notice was barred\t by  limita-\ntion.\nDismissing the appeal,\n    HELD: (1) With effect from 1.10.1975 a new s.4 has\tbeen\ninserted into the Central Excise &amp; Salt Act, 1944  providing\nfor  the  mode\tof valuation. The period  involved  in\tthis\nappeal\tis  from 27.9.1974 upto\t 31.5.1977.  Therefore,\t the\nperiod\tupto 30.9.1975 would be covered by the old  s.4\t and\nfrom 1.10.1975 till 31.5.1977 the provisions of new  section\nwould apply for determining the assessable value. [320E]\n319\n    (2)\t As  per arrangement between the appellant  and\t its\ncustomers, the appellant was permitted to lift the  allotted\ningots\tdirectly  and after carrying out  the  manufacturing\nprocess\t it  used  to deliver the  same\t to  the  customers.\n[321C-D]\n    (3)\t There has been no sale of the material between\t the\nappellant  and the customers. The appellant  was  collecting\nRs.600\tper metric ton as conversion charges and  Rs.60\t per\nmetric ton as handling charges. [320G]\n    (4)\t The  handling charges were intended  to  cover\t the\nappellant's expenses in lifting the ingots. The Tribunal has\ncome  to the right conclusion in holding that  the  handling\ncharges\t represented pre-manufacturing cost and became\tpart\nof the value for computation of duty. [321D-E]\n    (5)\t Rule 9 which corresponds to s.11-A of the Act\tpro-\nvided  a period of one year for taking of proceedings  while\nRule  10 corresponding to the present s. 11 of the Act\tpre-\nscribed\t a  period of three months for\tsuch  purpose.\tWith\neffect\tfrom 6.8.1977, the period of six months was  substi-\ntuted for the period of three months and the period of\tfive\nyears substituted for the period of one year. [321B-C]\n    (6)\t The  rule is intended to relate back  and  cover  a\nperiod\tof five years from the date jurisdiction  under\t the\nrule is invoked. The provision, is therefore,  retrospective\nin operation. [321G]\n(7)  Once  the rule comes into\texistence  and\tjurisdiction\nunder the rule is invoked, it has got to cover a period upto\nfive years preceding the date of issue of notice. [321H]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4542 (NM)  of<br \/>\n1985.\n<\/p>\n<p>    From the Order dated 10.6.1985 of the Customs Excise and<br \/>\nGold  (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal\t No.<br \/>\nED(SB) (T) A. No. 88 of 1980-A.\n<\/p>\n<p>M. Chandrasekharan, V.J. Francis, N.M. Popli for the Appel-<br \/>\nlant.\n<\/p>\n<p>    B. Datta, Additional Solicitor General, Ms. S. Relan and<br \/>\nMrs. Indra Sawhney for the Respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">320<\/span><br \/>\n    RANGANATH  MISRA, J. This appeal under section  35-L  of<br \/>\nthe  Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 is directed  against<br \/>\nthe  decision  of  the Customs, Excise\tand  Gold  (Control)<br \/>\nAppellate  Tribunal upholding the decision of the  Appellate<br \/>\nCollector of Central Excises, Madras. The short facts  rele-<br \/>\nvant  for  disposal of this appeal are\tthat  the  appellant<br \/>\nmanufactures aluminium wire rods out of duty paid E.C. grade<br \/>\naluminium  ingots on job basis on behalf of various  custom-<br \/>\ners.  Between September 1974 and May 1977 it received a\t sum<br \/>\nof more than 6 lakh rupees from customers by issue of  debit<br \/>\nnotes  over  and above the amounts  received  under  regular<br \/>\ninvoices. The Excise Authorities came across 966 such  debit<br \/>\nnotes and on the basis thereof called upon the appellant  to<br \/>\nshow  cause  why that&#8217;amount which was said to\tbe  handling<br \/>\ncharges should not be added to the invoice price and differ-<br \/>\nential\tduty  thereupon be recovered. The Revenue  took\t the<br \/>\nstand that there was suppression of information on the\tpart<br \/>\nof  the\t appellant  with regard to  collection\tof  handling<br \/>\ncharges\t and,  therefore, the notice was issued\t under\tRule<br \/>\n10(i)(c)  of the Rules framed under the Act.  The  Assistant<br \/>\nCollector  confirmed the demand after cause was\t shown.\t The<br \/>\nAppellate  Collector  upheld the demand\t by  dismissing\t the<br \/>\nappeal. The Tribunal has confirmed the Appellate order.<br \/>\n    There  is no dispute that with effect from\t1.10.1975  a<br \/>\nnew  Section 4 has been inserted into the Act providing\t for<br \/>\nthe  mode of valuation. In view of the fact that the  period<br \/>\ninvolved  in this appeal is from 27.9.74 upto  31.5.77,\t the<br \/>\nperiod upto 30th of September, 1975 would be covered by\t the<br \/>\nold  Section 4 and from 1.10.75 till 31.5.1977,\t the  provi-<br \/>\nsions of new Section would apply in the matter of  determin-<br \/>\ning  the  assessable  value. It is not\tdisputed  that\tfrom<br \/>\n15.7.75\t the  levy price of aluminium had  been\t statutorily<br \/>\nfixed at Rs.7062 per metric ton. It is the contention of the<br \/>\nappellant that on the basis of Rule 6(b)(i) of the Valuation<br \/>\nRules  the price of Rs.7062 should be adopted as  being\t the<br \/>\nprice of comparable goods and with effect from 1.10.1975 the<br \/>\nassessable  value should have been fixed under proviso\t(ii)<br \/>\nto Section 4(i)(a) or Section 4(1)(b) of the Act at the same<br \/>\namount. The admitted position is that there has been no sale<br \/>\nbetween the appellant and the customers of the material. The<br \/>\nappellant was collecting Rs.600 per metric ton as conversion<br \/>\ncharges\t and Rs.60 per metric ton as handling  charges.\t The<br \/>\ndispute\t in  the appeal is confined to the  question  as  to<br \/>\nwhether\t Rs.60 per metric ton collected as handling  charges<br \/>\ncould be added for computation of duty.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Two\t contentions are advanced in support of the  appeal;<br \/>\nfirstly,  Rs.60 which was collected as handling charges\t was<br \/>\nnot to be taken into<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">321<\/span><br \/>\naccount\t for computing duty and secondly, the  notice  dated<br \/>\n13th of October, 1978 had been issued more than a year after<br \/>\nthe  last date of the period in question and was  barred  by<br \/>\nlimitation. Prior to 6.8. 1977, Rule 9 which corresponds  to<br \/>\nSection\t 11-A of the Act provided a period of one  year\t for<br \/>\ntaking\tof  proceedings while Rule 10 corresponding  to\t the<br \/>\npresent\t section  11  of the Act prescribed a  period  of  3<br \/>\nmonths for such purpose. With effect from 6.8.1977, when the<br \/>\nrules were amended, the period of six months was substituted<br \/>\nfor the period of three months and the period of five  years<br \/>\nsubstituted  for  the period of one year. The  Tribunal\t has<br \/>\nheld  that  the period of five years was applicable  to\t the<br \/>\nfacts of the case on the basis that it is a case of suppres-<br \/>\nsion.  It is the case of the appellant that for\t convenience<br \/>\nthe arrangement between the appellant and its customers\t was<br \/>\nthat  instead of the customers collecting the ingots on\t the<br \/>\nbasis  of allotment at their respective factories  and\tthen<br \/>\ntransporting  the same to the appellant situated at  Belgaum<br \/>\nin the State of Karnataka, the appellant was being permitted<br \/>\nto lift the allotted ingots directly and after carrying\t out<br \/>\nthe manufacturing process it used to deliver the same to the<br \/>\ncustomers.  The handling charges were intended to cover\t the<br \/>\nappellant&#8217;s  expenses  in lifting the ingots.  The  Tribunal<br \/>\nhas, therefore, come to the right conclusion in holding that<br \/>\nthe handling charges represented pre-manufacturing cost.  We<br \/>\nagree  that the Tribunal came to the appropriate  conclusion<br \/>\nin  holding that the handling charges became a part  of\t the<br \/>\nvalue for computation of duty.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t Tribunal has recorded a finding that the  appellant<br \/>\nhad suppressed the disclosure of receipt of handling charges<br \/>\nand, therefore, the longer period of limitation applied. The<br \/>\nsame view had been taken by the departmental authorities. We<br \/>\nsee no justification to take a different view on the facts.<br \/>\n    The only other submission of the appellant which remains<br \/>\nfor  consideration is the tenability of the contention\tthat<br \/>\nthe  period  of limitation under the  old  provision  having<br \/>\nexpired\t the five year rule which has been applied  was\t not<br \/>\navailable  to be applied. Undoubtedly, the rule is  intended<br \/>\nto  relate  back and cover a period of five years  from\t the<br \/>\ndate  jurisdiction under the rule is invoked. The  provision<br \/>\nis,  therefore,\t retrospective in operation. It is  not\t the<br \/>\nstand  of  the learned counsel for the appellant  that\tonly<br \/>\nwhen  a\t period of five years has elapsed from the  date  of<br \/>\nintroduction of the rule, jurisdiction under the rule can be<br \/>\nexercised in respect of that preceding period of five years.<br \/>\nOnce  the rule comes into existence and\t jurisdiction  under<br \/>\nthe  rule is invoked it has got to cover a period upto\tfive<br \/>\nyears preceding<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">322<\/span><br \/>\nthe date of issue of notice. The Tribunal has endorsed\tsuch<br \/>\naction of the departmental authorities. The plea of  limita-<br \/>\ntion has no force.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Both  the contentions in support of the appeal fail.  We<br \/>\ndismiss the appeal but without costs.\n<\/p>\n<pre>A.P.J.\t\t\t\t\t\tAppeal\tdis-\nmissed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">323<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Mysore Rolling Mills (P) Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, &#8230; on 18 February, 1987 Equivalent citations: 1987 AIR 1488, 1987 SCR (2) 318 Author: M Rangnath Bench: Misra Rangnath PETITIONER: MYSORE ROLLING MILLS (P) LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELGAUM DATE OF JUDGMENT18\/02\/1987 BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH BENCH: MISRA [&hellip;]<\/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-106551","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Mysore Rolling Mills (P) Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, ... on 18 February, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/mysore-rolling-mills-p-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-18-february-1987\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mysore Rolling Mills (P) Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, ... on 18 February, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mysore-rolling-mills-p-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-18-february-1987\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1987-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-15T20:25:58+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mysore-rolling-mills-p-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-18-february-1987#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mysore-rolling-mills-p-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-18-february-1987\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mysore Rolling Mills (P) Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, &#8230; on 18 February, 1987\",\"datePublished\":\"1987-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-15T20:25:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mysore-rolling-mills-p-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-18-february-1987\"},\"wordCount\":1069,\"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\\\/mysore-rolling-mills-p-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-18-february-1987#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mysore-rolling-mills-p-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-18-february-1987\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mysore-rolling-mills-p-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-18-february-1987\",\"name\":\"Mysore Rolling Mills (P) Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, ... on 18 February, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1987-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-15T20:25:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mysore-rolling-mills-p-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-18-february-1987#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mysore-rolling-mills-p-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-18-february-1987\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mysore-rolling-mills-p-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-18-february-1987#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mysore Rolling Mills (P) Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, &#8230; on 18 February, 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":"Mysore Rolling Mills (P) Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, ... on 18 February, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/mysore-rolling-mills-p-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-18-february-1987","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mysore Rolling Mills (P) Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, ... on 18 February, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mysore-rolling-mills-p-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-18-february-1987","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1987-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-15T20:25:58+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mysore-rolling-mills-p-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-18-february-1987#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mysore-rolling-mills-p-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-18-february-1987"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mysore Rolling Mills (P) Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, &#8230; on 18 February, 1987","datePublished":"1987-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-15T20:25:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mysore-rolling-mills-p-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-18-february-1987"},"wordCount":1069,"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\/mysore-rolling-mills-p-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-18-february-1987#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mysore-rolling-mills-p-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-18-february-1987","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mysore-rolling-mills-p-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-18-february-1987","name":"Mysore Rolling Mills (P) Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, ... on 18 February, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1987-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-15T20:25:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mysore-rolling-mills-p-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-18-february-1987#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mysore-rolling-mills-p-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-18-february-1987"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mysore-rolling-mills-p-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-18-february-1987#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mysore Rolling Mills (P) Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, &#8230; on 18 February, 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\/106551","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=106551"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/106551\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=106551"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=106551"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=106551"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}