{"id":227571,"date":"1988-10-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1988-10-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-central-excise-vs-calcutta-steel-industries-and-ors-on-27-october-1988"},"modified":"2017-08-07T14:30:55","modified_gmt":"2017-08-07T09:00:55","slug":"collector-of-central-excise-vs-calcutta-steel-industries-and-ors-on-27-october-1988","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-central-excise-vs-calcutta-steel-industries-and-ors-on-27-october-1988","title":{"rendered":"Collector Of Central Excise vs Calcutta Steel Industries And Ors on 27 October, 1988"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Collector Of Central Excise vs Calcutta Steel Industries And Ors on 27 October, 1988<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1987 AIR 1353, \t\t 1987 SCR (2) 387<\/div>\n
Author: M Thakkar<\/div>\n
Bench: Thakkar, M.P. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCALCUTTA STEEL INDUSTRIES AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT27\/10\/1988\n\nBENCH:\nTHAKKAR, M.P. (J)\nBENCH:\nTHAKKAR, M.P. (J)\nRAY, B.C. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1987 AIR 1353\t\t  1987 SCR  (2) 387\n 1987 SCC  (2) 107\t  JT 1987 (1)\t537\n 1987 SCALE  (1)413\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1988 SC 897\t (7)\n\n\nACT:\n    Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944-Central Excise Tariff\nItems\t26AA(ia)  and  26AA(ii)--Hoop  and   Strip   whether\nassessable to duty.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The\t respondent  company  filed  revised  classification\nlists  classifying  all rectangular  products  of  thickness\nbelow 3.0 mm manufactured by them as bars covered by  Tariff\nItem  26AA(ia)\tof  the Central Excise\tTariff.\t The  Asstt.\nCollector,  Central  Excise took the view  that\t rectangular\nproducts  of  thickness less than 3.0 mm and of\t width\tless\nthan  75 mm fell under the definition of 'Hoops'  and  merit\nclassification\tunder Tariff Item 26AA(ii) and\texigible  to\nthe  appropriate  duty. The respondent preferred  an  appeal\nbefore\tthe  Collector of Central Excise who held  that\t the\nproduct fell within the definition of 'Hoops' and upheld the\norder of the Asstt. Collector.\n    The respondent appealed to the Tribunal which held\tthat\nthe  flat product of thickness less than 3.0 mm and a  width\nof less than 75 mm was classifiable as 'bars' as claimed  by\nthe  respondent company and not as 'Hoops' and\tallowed\t the\nappeals.\n    The Department therefore filed the appeals under Section\n35L(b)\tof the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 before\tthis\nCourt.\n    Dismissing the appeals, this Court,\n    HELD:  If  the revenue wants to tax a  particular  goods\nknown as such then the onus is on the Revenue. [600F]\n    'Hoop' is made either by slitting coiled strip rolled in\nmultiple  width,  into narrow coiled strip  of\tthe  desired\nwidth, or from narrow coiled strip with a hot-rolled or mill\nedge  and  the\ttype  and  width  of  hoop  being   produced\ninfluences the choice of the method used. [599B]\n    Curled  hoop is made by a pinch-roll and  curved  guide-\nshoe  arrangement that permits the hoop to take\t a  circular\nform. A straight length hoop is produced merely by  removing\nthe curved guide-shoe.1599D]\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 597\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 598\n    Straight  length  is  not a short length,  it  is  long.\n[599E]\n    The fact is that they were produced in a mill that could\nproduce\t hoops and strips. Their lengths are not such as  to\nplace  them in the same class as hoops.\t Having,  therefore,\nregard\tto this and the relevant tariff item,  the  Tribunal\ncame to the conclusion that it will be more appropriate\t  to\nassess them under Item 26AA(ia) than Item 26AA(ii).  [599(G-\nH; 600A]\n    South  Bihar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Union of India &  Ors.,<\/a>\n[1968] 3 S.C.R. 21, referred to.\n    In an appeal under Section 35L(b) this Court has to\t see\nthe propriety and the correctness of adjudication. There was\nno  misdirection in law nor any non-consideration of  facts.\nThere  is  no  exclusion from  consideration  of  legitimate\nproper materials. [600F-G]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos.  1671-
\n87 of 1987.\n<\/p>\n
    From  the  Judgment\t and order dated  22.4.1987  of\t the
\nCustoms,  Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal,\t New
\nDelhi in Appeal No. 1546, 1547 etc. in Order No. 267 to\t 283
\nof 1987 B I.\n<\/p>\n
    M.K. Banerjee, Solicitor General, R.P. Srivastava and P.
\nParmeswarn for the Appellants.\n<\/p>\n
    Soli J. Sorabji, K.K. Patel, Rajiv Dutta and R.S.  Sodhi
\nfor the Respondents .\n<\/p>\n
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n    SABYASACHI\tMUKHARJI,  J.  These are  appeals  from\t the
\ndecision  of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control)  Appellate
\nTribunal,  New\tDelhi (hereinafter referred to\tas  ‘CEGAT’)
\nunder Section 35L(b) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944
\n(hereinafter  called  ‘the Act ).  The\trespondent  Calcutta
\nSteel Industries filed revised classification lists  wherein
\nthey  had classified all rectangular products  of  thickness
\nbelow 3.0 mm manufactured by them as bars covered by  Tariff
\nitem  26AA(ia) of the Central Excise Tariff.  The  Assistant
\nCollector,  Central  Excise was of the tentative  view\tthat
\nrectangular  products of thickness less than 3.0 mm  and  of
\nwidth less than 75 mm conform to the definition of Hoops and
\nmerit  classification  under item (ii) of Tariff  Item\t26AA
\nattracting effective rate of duty of Rs.450 per MT less the
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 597
\nreduction  provided for under Notification No.\t55\/80  dated
\n13th May, 1980. The respondents were, therefore, called upon
\nto  show cause as to why the classification list should\t not
\nbe  amended  and duty charged accordingly.  The\t respondents
\nsubmitted  their  written  statement  and  requested  for  a
\npersonal hearing. The matter came up for adjudication before
\nthe Assistant Collector, Central Excise. He held inter\talia
\nthat  the  type\t of  Mills  used  for  the  manufacture\t was
\nirrelevant.  He relied on the definition of “Hoops”  evolved
\nin  consultation with the Ministry of Steel and\t the  Indian
\nStandard Institution. The revised definition was as follows:\n<\/p>\n
    “The  finished product, generally of cross-section\twith
\nedges of controlled contour and of thickness 3.0 mm and over
\nwidth 400 mm and below and supplied in straight lenths.\t The
\nproduct\t shall\thave rolled edges only (square\tor  slightly
\nrounded). This group also includes flat bars with bulb\tthat
\nhas  swelling  on one or two phases of the same\t edge  under
\nwidth of less than 400 mm.\n<\/p>\n
    The Assistant Collector, Central Excise on the basis  of
\ncertain\t discussion,  in  his order, was of  the  view\tthat
\nrectangular  products of thickness less than 3.0 mm  and  of
\nwidth  less  than  75  mm  were\t hoops\tand  were  correctly
\nclassified  under sub-item (ii) of Tariff item 26AA  of\t the
\nCentral\t Excise\t Tariff\t and  accordingly  exigible  to\t the
\nappropriate  duty.  The\t revised  classification  list\t was
\naccordingly modified and approved. The respondents preferred
\nappeals\t to the Collector of Central Excise  (Appeals).\t The
\nCollector  considered  the  Indian  Standard  1956-62\t(2nd
\nreprint May 1975) which defined “Hoops” as follows:\n<\/p>\n
    “5.54  HOOP\t (bailing,  hoop  iron)-a  Hot\tRolled\tFlat
\nProduct,  rolled  in rectangular section of  thickness\tless
\nthan 3.0 mm and width less than 75.0 mm.”\n<\/p>\n
    He held that according to the specifications the product
\nin  question  sequarely\t fell within  the  above  definition
\nparticularly  when  the\t description  of  the  Tariff  Items
\ncovered\t “Hoops,  all sorts”. The Appellate  Collector\talso
\nconsidered  the\t definition  of “Hoop  and  Strips”  in\t the
\nBrussels  Tariff  Nomenclature\twhich  described  these\t  as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
    “Hoop and Strip (heading No. 73. 12)
\n    rolled  products  with  sheared or\tunsheared  edges  of
\nrectangular  section, of a thickness set exceeding 6  milli-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 598
\nmetres,\t of width not exceeding 500 millimetres and of\tsuch
\ndimension  that the thickness does not exceed  one-tenth  of
\nthe width, in straight strips, coils or flattened coils.”\n<\/p>\n
    He accordingly held that this definition showed that the
\nedges  of  the\tproduct\t in question  might  be\t sheared  or
\nunsheared  and the products might be in straight lengths  or
\nin  coils.  He\talso held that the nature or  type  of\tmill
\ncannot\tby itself be the determining factor of the issue  in
\ndispute\t which has to be determined taking into account\t all
\nrelevant considerations, viz., the phraseology and the scope
\nof  the Tariff Entry, the trade practice terminology,  well-
\nrecognised  standard  national and  international  technical
\nliterature.  In\t the  result,  the  Appellate  Collector  of
\nCentral\t Excise\t inter alia for the  reasons  stated  above,
\nfound no reason to interfere with the order of the Assistant
\nCollector, Central Excise which was accordingly upheld.
\n    The\t respondents preferred appeals to the Tribunal.\t The
\nTribunal allowed the appeals and held that the flat  product
\nof thickness less than 3.0 mm and a width of less than 75 mm
\nis classifiable as bars as claimed by the respondents herein
\nand not as hoops as held by the Assistant Collector, Central
\nExcise\tand  upheld by the Appellate  Collector\t of  Central
\nExcise.\t in allowing the appeals, the Tribunal\treferred  to
\nU.S. Steel Publications (The shaping and treating of  steel)
\nwherein it is stated as follows:\n<\/p>\n
    “goods have been rolled in a bar mill and have not\tbeen
\nsubjected to the process mentioned by the book for producing
\nhoops and that they were not meant for bailing or  packaging
\nwhich a hoop is meant for.”
\n    The\t Tribunal in its order discussed various aspects  of
\nthe matter. The Tribunal noted that the Collector had stated
\nand  what  are\tthe  different\tcategories.  In\t U.S.  Steel
\nPublication  (The  Making, Shaping and Treating\t of  Steels)
\nedited by Herald E. Mc. Gannon 9th Edition whom the Tribunal
\nhas described as an authority on the Steel and we presume he
\nis,  there  are\t some observations at  page  808  under\t the
\nheading\t “Narrow Flat–rolled products” which are  relevant.
\nThere,”Hoops” have been described as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     “Hoop–There  are four general classification  of\tthis
\ntype  of products:\n<\/p>\n
    1. Tight cooperage hoop for barrels to hold liquid.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 599\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    2. Slack barrell hoop for barrels to hold dry products.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    3. Tobacco barrel hogshead hoop, and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    4. Special hoop for special packages.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    It has further to be noted that “hoop” is made either by
\nslitting coiled strip rolled in multiple width, into  narrow
\ncoiled\tstrip  of the desired width, or from  narrow  coiled
\nstrip with a not-rolled or mill edge and the type and  width
\nof  hoop being produced influences the choice of the  method
\nused. It further appears that the method of the products  in
\nquestion   is  not  one\t of  the  methods  listed  in\tthis
\nauthoritative  work for hoops. The so called hoops were\t not
\nproduced  by  slitting coiled strip nor rolled\tfrom  narrow
\ncoiled strip, with hot rolled or mill edge. The article,  as
\nhas  been  noted, says that “hoop” is  produced\t as’  curled
\nhoop’  or  ‘a  straight length’. Curled hoop is\t made  by  a
\npinchroll and curved guide-shoe arrangement that permits the
\nhoop  to  take a circular form. A straight  length  hoop  is
\nproduced merely by removing the curved guide shoe.
\n    The\t Tribunal was conscious that the goods\tin  question
\nwere  neither  curled hoops nor straight  length.  In  those
\ncircumstances,\tit was necessary to understand clearly\tthat
\nthe “straight length” used in this book is not the  straight
\nlength\tunderstood  by the department which seems  to  think
\nthat  any  short  straight length  is  the  straight  length
\nsignified  by the term for these products. It is nothing  of
\nthe  kind as can be seen from the above passage quoted\tfrom
\nthe authority. Straight length is not a short length, it  is
\nlong.  The  means  of  producing  the  goods  is  completely
\ndifferent  from what is generally written. The Tribunal\t was
\njustified  in holding that it is not possible to agree\twith
\nthe  department that the manner of production of  the  goods
\ncan be taken into account.\n<\/p>\n
    It has also to be borne in mind that the very nature  of
\nthe mill was a criteria to decide the nature of the  product
\nmanufactured.  Further,\t however, taking  into\taccount\t the
\nnature and type of the mill cannot itself be the determining
\nfactor in the issue in dispute. The Tribunal also took\tinto
\naccount\t that  these  are produced in a\t mill  which  cannot
\nproduce\t hoops or strips. The Tribunal found the  fact\tthat
\nthey  were produced in a mill that could produce  hoops\t and
\nstrips.\t Their lengths are not such as to place them in\t the
\nsame  class as hoops. Having, therefore, regard to this\t and
\nthe   relevant\ttariff\titem,  the  Tribunal  came  to\t the
\nconclusion  that it will be more appropriate to assess\tthem
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 600
\nunder  item 26AA(ia) than under Item 26AA(ii). The  Tribunal
\nhas  considered\t all  the  relevant  facts.  There  was\t  no
\nmisdirection on the facts. All proper and relevant materials
\nrelevant  for the determination of the question\t before\t the
\nTribunal  have\tbeen  applied to.  Reliance  was  placed  on
\ncertain\t observations  of this Court in\t South\tBihar  Sugar
\nMills Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.,<\/a> [1968] 3 SCR 21. There,
\nthis  Court  was dealing with Item 14A and  the\t appellants’
\nmanufacturing mixture of gases containing carbon dioxide  by
\nburning\t lime-stone  with  coke in  using  only\t the  carbon
\ndioxide\t from the mixture for refining sugarcane  juice\t and
\nfor  producing\tsoda  ash by solvay  ammonia  soda  process-
\nWhether\t the  mixture of gases was kiln\t gas  or  compressed
\ncarbon\tdioxide\t covered by Item 14-H in Schedule I  to\t the
\nAct. It was held by this Court that the gas generated by the
\nappellant companies was kiln gas and not carbon as known  to
\nthe trade, i.e., to those who deal in it or who use it.\t The
\nkiln gas in question therefore is neither carbon dioxide nor
\ncompressed  carbon dioxide known as such to  the  commercial
\ncommunity  and\ttherefore cannot attract Item  14-H  in\t the
\nFirst  Schedule.  It was held that it was incorrect  to\t say
\nthat because the sugar manufacturer wants carbon dioxide for
\ncarbonisation  purposes\t and sets up a kiln for it  that  he
\nproduces  carbon dioxide and not kiln gas. In fact  what  he
\nproduces  is  a mixture known both to trade and\t science  as
\nkiln  gas  one\tof the constituents of which  is  no  doubt,
\ncarbon\tdioxide.  The kiln gas which is generated  in  these
\ncases  is admittedly never liquified nor solidified  and  is
\ntherefore  neither liquified nor solidified carbon  dioxide,
\nassuming that it can be termed carbon dioxide. It cannot  be
\ncalled compressed carbon dioxide as understood in the market
\namong  those who deal in compressed carbon dioxide.  If\t the
\nRevenue\t wants to tax a particular goods known as such\tthen
\nthe  onus  is  on the Revenue. That they  have\tfailed.\t The
\nTribunal has analysed all the aspects. In appeal, we have to
\nsee  the  propriety  and the  correctness  of  adjudication.
\nHaving\texamined the aspects from all angles, we  find\tthat
\nthere  was no misdirection in law nor any  non-consideration
\nof  facts.  There  is no  exclusion  from  consideration  of
\nlegitimate  and proper materials. In the premises,  we\thave
\nalso examined the ultimate conclusion of the Tribunal.\tThat
\nconclusion  appeals to us. It follows irresistibly from\t the
\nother  premises as indicated hereinbefore. In the  premises,
\nthe appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
    S.K.A.\t\t\t\tAppeals dismissed.\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Collector Of Central Excise vs Calcutta Steel Industries And Ors on 27 October, 1988 Equivalent citations: 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 SCR (2) 387 Author: M Thakkar Bench: Thakkar, M.P. (J) PETITIONER: COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. RESPONDENT: CALCUTTA STEEL INDUSTRIES AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT27\/10\/1988 BENCH: THAKKAR, M.P. (J) BENCH: THAKKAR, […]<\/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-227571","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nCollector Of Central Excise vs Calcutta Steel Industries And Ors on 27 October, 1988 - 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\/collector-of-central-excise-vs-calcutta-steel-industries-and-ors-on-27-october-1988\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Collector Of Central Excise vs Calcutta Steel Industries And Ors on 27 October, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-central-excise-vs-calcutta-steel-industries-and-ors-on-27-october-1988\" \/>\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=\"1988-10-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-07T09:00:55+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-of-central-excise-vs-calcutta-steel-industries-and-ors-on-27-october-1988#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-of-central-excise-vs-calcutta-steel-industries-and-ors-on-27-october-1988\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Collector Of Central Excise vs Calcutta Steel Industries And Ors on 27 October, 1988\",\"datePublished\":\"1988-10-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-07T09:00:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-of-central-excise-vs-calcutta-steel-industries-and-ors-on-27-october-1988\"},\"wordCount\":1826,\"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\\\/collector-of-central-excise-vs-calcutta-steel-industries-and-ors-on-27-october-1988#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-of-central-excise-vs-calcutta-steel-industries-and-ors-on-27-october-1988\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-of-central-excise-vs-calcutta-steel-industries-and-ors-on-27-october-1988\",\"name\":\"Collector Of Central Excise vs Calcutta Steel Industries And Ors on 27 October, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1988-10-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-07T09:00:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-of-central-excise-vs-calcutta-steel-industries-and-ors-on-27-october-1988#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-of-central-excise-vs-calcutta-steel-industries-and-ors-on-27-october-1988\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/collector-of-central-excise-vs-calcutta-steel-industries-and-ors-on-27-october-1988#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Collector Of Central Excise vs Calcutta Steel Industries And Ors on 27 October, 1988\"}]},{\"@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":"Collector Of Central Excise vs Calcutta Steel Industries And Ors on 27 October, 1988 - 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\/collector-of-central-excise-vs-calcutta-steel-industries-and-ors-on-27-october-1988","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Collector Of Central Excise vs Calcutta Steel Industries And Ors on 27 October, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-central-excise-vs-calcutta-steel-industries-and-ors-on-27-october-1988","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1988-10-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-07T09:00:55+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-central-excise-vs-calcutta-steel-industries-and-ors-on-27-october-1988#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-central-excise-vs-calcutta-steel-industries-and-ors-on-27-october-1988"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Collector Of Central Excise vs Calcutta Steel Industries And Ors on 27 October, 1988","datePublished":"1988-10-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-07T09:00:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-central-excise-vs-calcutta-steel-industries-and-ors-on-27-october-1988"},"wordCount":1826,"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\/collector-of-central-excise-vs-calcutta-steel-industries-and-ors-on-27-october-1988#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-central-excise-vs-calcutta-steel-industries-and-ors-on-27-october-1988","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-central-excise-vs-calcutta-steel-industries-and-ors-on-27-october-1988","name":"Collector Of Central Excise vs Calcutta Steel Industries And Ors on 27 October, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1988-10-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-07T09:00:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-central-excise-vs-calcutta-steel-industries-and-ors-on-27-october-1988#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-central-excise-vs-calcutta-steel-industries-and-ors-on-27-october-1988"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/collector-of-central-excise-vs-calcutta-steel-industries-and-ors-on-27-october-1988#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Collector Of Central Excise vs Calcutta Steel Industries And Ors on 27 October, 1988"}]},{"@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\/227571","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=227571"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/227571\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=227571"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=227571"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=227571"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}