{"id":120315,"date":"1987-02-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1987-02-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premier-tyres-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-9-february-1987"},"modified":"2016-09-27T01:15:36","modified_gmt":"2016-09-26T19:45:36","slug":"premier-tyres-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-9-february-1987","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premier-tyres-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-9-february-1987","title":{"rendered":"Premier Tyres Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, &#8230; on 9 February, 1987"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Premier Tyres Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, &#8230; on 9 February, 1987<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1987 AIR  729, \t\t  1987 SCR  (2) 198<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: O C Reddy<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nPREMIER\t TYRES LTD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, COCHIN\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT09\/02\/1987\n\nBENCH:\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\nBENCH:\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\nKHALID, V. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1987 AIR  729\t\t  1987 SCR  (2) 198\n 1987 SCC  (1) 697\t  1987 SCALE  (1)273\n\n\nACT:\n    Central  excise Rules, 1944: Rule  8(1)--Exemption\tfrom\nexcise\tduty--Notification dated June 16, 1977 and July\t 14,\n1978'Applicability of.\nExcise duty-- Double taxation-- Whether permissible.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    By\ta  notification\t dated August 1,  1974\tthe  Central\nGovernment  in exercise of its powers under  sub-rule(1)  of\nRule  8\t of the Central Excise\tRules,\texempted  automobile\ntyres from excise duty leviable thereon as was in excess  of\nfifty-five per cent ad valorem. Another notification  issued\non  June 16, 1977 exempted all excisable goods from duty  to\nthe extent of the duty already paid on the inputs. A further\nnotification  dated July 14, 1978 exempted tyres  and  tubes\nfrom  so  much of the duty leviable thereon (read  with\t any\nrelevant  notification issued under the said  subrule(1)  of\nRule  8\t in force for the time being) as was  in  excess  of\neightyseven and a half per cent of such duty if produced  in\nany  factory which commenced production for the\t first\ttime\nearlier than the 1st day of April 1976, and seventy five per\ncent of such duty if produced in any factory which commenced\nproduction  for\t the first time on or after the 1st  day  of\nApril, 1976.\n    A dispute arosse in respect of the latter two  notifica-\ntion  as to which of them was first to be given\t effect\t to.\nThe  Tribunal  accepted\t the  Department's  contention\tthat\neffect had to be given in the first instance to the  notifi-\ncation\tdated  June 16, 1977, and then to  the\tnotification\ndated July 14, 1978.\n    In this appeal, it was contended for the appellant\tthat\nto give effect to the second notification and thereafter  to\nthe  third notification would mean that the  assessee  would\nnot  be getting full credit for the entire duty paid on\t the\ninputs\tbut  only a percentage of it and that  there  would,\ntherefore, be double taxation at least to that extent.\nDismissing the appeal, the Court,\n199\n    HELD: 1. The Tribunal was right in taking the view\tthat\neffect had to be given first to the notification dated\tJune\n16,  1977 and then to the notification dated July 14,  1978.\nThe words \"read with any relevant notification issued  under\nthe said sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 in force for the time being\"\nsuper-added  by\t the latter notification  show\tconclusively\nthat the earlier notification dealing with exemption to\t the\nextent\tof the duty paid on the inputs which was already  in\nforce had first to be given effect to. [201E-G]\n    <a href=\"\/doc\/1893386\/\">Assistant  Collector of Central Excise v. Madras  Rubber\nFactory\t Limited,  Civil Appeal No.<\/a> 3195  of  1979,  distin-\nguished.\n    2.\tThere is no general principle that there can  be  no\n'double taxation' in the levy of excise duty. The Court\t may\nlean  in  favour of a construction which will  avoid  double\ntaxation,  but in the instant case there does not appear  to\nbe any lean question of construction at all. [202B-C]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>    CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.  943  Of<br \/>\n1986.\n<\/p>\n<p>    From the Judgment and Order dated 4th July, 1985 of\t the<br \/>\nAppellate Tribunal in Appeal no. 244 of 1985-D.<br \/>\nL.M. Singhvi and K.K. Bhaduri for the appellant.<br \/>\nA Subba Rao and Ms. S. Relan for the Respondent.<br \/>\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n    CHINNAPPA  REDDY, J. This appeal is directed  against  a<br \/>\njudgment  of the Customs, Excise and Gold Control  Appellate<br \/>\nTribunal  in  regard  to the manner and\t sequence  in  which<br \/>\ncertain\t notifications\tunder  Rule 8 Sub-rule\t(1)  of\t the<br \/>\nCentral\t Excise Rules granting exemptions from duty have  to<br \/>\nbe  worked  out.  By a notification dated  August  1974\t the<br \/>\nCentral\t  Government,  in  exercise  of\t its  powers   under<br \/>\nsubrule(1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules exempted.\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;Tyres  for motor vehicles failing under\tsub-<br \/>\n\t      item(1)  of Item No. 16 of the First  Schedule<br \/>\n\t      to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944(1  of<br \/>\n\t      1944)  from  so  much of the  duty  of  excise<br \/>\n\t      leviable thereon as is in excess of fifty-five<br \/>\n\t      per cent Ad valorem&#8221;.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">200<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Thereafter on June 16, 1977 another notification was  issued<br \/>\nin the following terms:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;In  exercise of the powers conferred by\tsub-<br \/>\n\t      rule  (1)\t of  Rule 8 of\tthe  Central  Excise<br \/>\n\t      Rules,  1944  the\t Central  Government  hereby<br \/>\n\t      exempts\tall  excisable\tgoods\t(hereinafter<br \/>\n\t      referred to as the &#8220;said goods&#8221;) on which\t the<br \/>\n\t      duty of excise is leviable and in the manufac-<br \/>\n\t      ture of which any goods falling under Item No.<br \/>\n\t      68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise<br \/>\n\t      and  Salt Act, 1944 (1 of\t 1944)\t(hereinafter<br \/>\n\t      referred\tto  as the inputs) have\t been  used,<br \/>\n\t      from  so much of the duty of  excise  leviable<br \/>\n\t      thereon as is equivalent to the duty of excise<br \/>\n\t      already  paid on the inputs. Notification\t No.<br \/>\n\t      205\/77  dated 28.9.77, subject to\t the  condi-<br \/>\n\t      tions  that the manufacturer furnishes to\t the<br \/>\n\t      proper Officer a statement showing the quanti-<br \/>\n\t      ty  of the inputs used in the  manufacture  of<br \/>\n\t      every unit of the said goods.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      Provided\tthat where the duty of excise  levi-<br \/>\n\t      able on the said goods is less than the amount<br \/>\n\t      of  duty\tof  excise paid on  the\t inputs\t the<br \/>\n\t      extent of exemption shall be restricted to the<br \/>\n\t      duty of excise on the said goods.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>A Further notification was issued on July 14, 1978 and\tthis<br \/>\nwas in the following terms:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;In  exercise of the powers conferred by\tsub-<br \/>\n\t      rule(1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules,<br \/>\n\t      1944,  the Central Government  hereby  exempts<br \/>\n\t      tyres and tubes excluding flaps failing  under<br \/>\n\t      Item No. 16(1) and 18(3) of the First Schedule<br \/>\n\t      to  the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944  (1<br \/>\n\t      of  1944)\t (hereinafter  referred\t to  as\t the<br \/>\n\t      specified\t goods) from so much of the duty  of<br \/>\n\t      excise  leviable thereon (read with any  rele-<br \/>\n\t      vant  notification issued under the said\tsub-<br \/>\n\t      rule(1)  of rule 8 and in force for  the\ttime<br \/>\n\t      being) as is in excess of\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (a) eighty-seven and a half per cent, of\tsuch<br \/>\n\t      duty,  if produced in any factory\t which\tcom-<br \/>\n\t      menced  production of the specified goods\t for<br \/>\n\t      the  first  time earlier than the 1st  day  of<br \/>\n\t      April 1976: and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (b)  Seventy-five\t per cent of such  duty,  if<br \/>\n\t      produced\tin any factory which commenced\tpro-<br \/>\n\t      duction of the specified<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t      201<\/span><br \/>\n\t      goods  for the first time on or after the\t 1st<br \/>\n\t      day of April, 1976,<br \/>\n\t      subject to the conditions that:-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>    There  is no controversy regarding evaluation  According<br \/>\nto  the assessee as well as the department effect has  first<br \/>\nto be given to the notification dated August 1, 1974 and the<br \/>\nduty calculated in terms of that notification. There is also<br \/>\nno  controversy\t at  this stage.  The  controversy  begining<br \/>\nthereafter. According to the dapartment, thereafter,  effect<br \/>\nhas  to\t be given first to the notification dated  June\t 16,<br \/>\n1977 and then to the notification dated July 14, 1978 where-<br \/>\nas according to the assessee effect has to be given, in\t the<br \/>\nfirst instance, to the notification dated July 14, 1978\t and<br \/>\nthen  to the notification dated 16, 1977.  The\tDepartment&#8217;s<br \/>\ncontention was accepted by the Tribunal. In this appeal, Dr.<br \/>\nL.M. Singhvi, learned counsel for the appellant argued\tthat<br \/>\non  principle the effective duty has to be first  determina-<br \/>\ntion by applying the notification dated July 14, 1978  first<br \/>\nand the duty paid on the inputs should be set off under\t the<br \/>\nnotification dated June 16, 1977 against the duty determined<br \/>\nas  payable after applying the notification dated  July\t 14,<br \/>\n1978. In support of his argument, the learned counsel relied<br \/>\nupon a recent judgment of this court in Assistant  Collector<br \/>\nof  Central Excise v, Madras Rubber Factory  limited,  Civil<br \/>\nAppeal No. 3195 of 1979 etc. We are afraid that in the\tface<br \/>\nof the language of the notifications, it is not possible  to<br \/>\nagree  with the submission of Dr. Singhvi. We  have  already<br \/>\nextracted the notification dated June 16, 1977 and July\t 14,<br \/>\n1978.  The  notification dated July 14, 1978, it  is  to  be<br \/>\nnoticed,  has super-added the words &#8220;read with any  relevant<br \/>\nnotification issued under the said sub-rule(1) of Rule 8 and<br \/>\nin  force for the time being.&#8221; These super-added words\tshow<br \/>\nconclusively that the notification dealing with exemption to<br \/>\nthe extent of the duty paid on the inputs, which was already<br \/>\nin force, had to be given effect before giving effect to the<br \/>\nnotification dated July 14, 1978. This was the submission of<br \/>\nShri A. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the department and it<br \/>\nis difficult to see any escape from it. The case upon  which<br \/>\nreliance  was placed by Dr. Singhvi does not appear to\thave<br \/>\nany relevance to the question at issue. There, the court was<br \/>\nconcerned with the determination of the assessable value and<br \/>\nnot  with  the\tpresent question relating to  the  order  of<br \/>\npriority in which the notifications granting<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">202<\/span><br \/>\nexemption from duty had to be applied. There, what the court<br \/>\ndecided\t was  that Excise Duty cannot  be  computed  without<br \/>\nproper determination of the assessable value namely assessa-<br \/>\nble value exclusive of permissible deductions. That  princi-<br \/>\nple  cannot  come in aid of the question  involved  in\tthis<br \/>\nappeal. The learned counsel also argued that to give  effect<br \/>\nfirst  to  the notification dealing with  exemption  to\t the<br \/>\nextent\tof  the duty paid on inputs and\t thereafter  to\t the<br \/>\nnotification dated July 14, 1978 would mean that the  asses-<br \/>\nsee  would  not be getting full credit for the\tentire\tduty<br \/>\npaid  on the inputs but only to a percentage of it and\tthat<br \/>\nthere  would, therefore, be double taxation atleast to\tthat<br \/>\nextent.\t There is no general principle that there can be  no<br \/>\n&#8216;double taxation&#8217; in the levy of Excise Duty. The court\t may<br \/>\nlean  in  favour of a construction which will  avoid  double<br \/>\ntaxation but in the present case there does not appear to be<br \/>\nany lean question of construction at all. On the language of<br \/>\nthe  notification  dated July 14, 1978 only one\t result\t can<br \/>\nfollow. That is the view taken by the Tribunal in the  order<br \/>\nunder  appeal.\tWe agree with that view of the\tmatter.\t The<br \/>\nappeal is dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n<pre>P.S.S.\t\t\t\t\t\t      Appeal\ndismissed.\n?203\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Premier Tyres Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, &#8230; on 9 February, 1987 Equivalent citations: 1987 AIR 729, 1987 SCR (2) 198 Author: O C Reddy Bench: Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J) PETITIONER: PREMIER TYRES LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, COCHIN DATE OF JUDGMENT09\/02\/1987 BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) BENCH: [&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-120315","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>Premier Tyres Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, ... on 9 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\/premier-tyres-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-9-february-1987\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Premier Tyres Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, ... on 9 February, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premier-tyres-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-9-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=\"1987-02-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-26T19:45:36+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\\\/premier-tyres-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-9-february-1987#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/premier-tyres-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-9-february-1987\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Premier Tyres Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, &#8230; on 9 February, 1987\",\"datePublished\":\"1987-02-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-26T19:45:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/premier-tyres-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-9-february-1987\"},\"wordCount\":1147,\"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\\\/premier-tyres-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-9-february-1987#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/premier-tyres-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-9-february-1987\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/premier-tyres-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-9-february-1987\",\"name\":\"Premier Tyres Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, ... on 9 February, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1987-02-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-26T19:45:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/premier-tyres-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-9-february-1987#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/premier-tyres-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-9-february-1987\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/premier-tyres-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-9-february-1987#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Premier Tyres Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, &#8230; on 9 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":"Premier Tyres Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, ... on 9 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\/premier-tyres-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-9-february-1987","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Premier Tyres Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, ... on 9 February, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premier-tyres-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-9-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":"1987-02-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-26T19:45:36+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\/premier-tyres-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-9-february-1987#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premier-tyres-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-9-february-1987"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Premier Tyres Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, &#8230; on 9 February, 1987","datePublished":"1987-02-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-26T19:45:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premier-tyres-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-9-february-1987"},"wordCount":1147,"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\/premier-tyres-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-9-february-1987#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premier-tyres-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-9-february-1987","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premier-tyres-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-9-february-1987","name":"Premier Tyres Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, ... on 9 February, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1987-02-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-26T19:45:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premier-tyres-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-9-february-1987#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premier-tyres-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-9-february-1987"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premier-tyres-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-on-9-february-1987#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Premier Tyres Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, &#8230; on 9 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\/120315","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=120315"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/120315\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=120315"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=120315"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=120315"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}