ivil Appeal No 3544 of 1989
From the Judgment and Order No 13189 D dated 95
1989 of the Central Excises  Gold Control Appellate Tribunal New Delhi in Appeal No E117688 D Rajiv Dutta Nimish Kothare and KK Patel for the Appel lant
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J
This is an appeal under section 35L of the Central Excise  Salt Act 1944 hereinafter referred to as the Act 
The appellant is a manufacturer of various types of food products known as Sapaghetti Macaroni Vermicelli etc falling under Heading No 190210 of the Central Excise Tariff Act
The appellant filed classification list effec tive from 1st March 1987 claiming that their pre budget stocks of non excisable goods namely various types of food products declared in the classification list as aforesaid were entitled to duty free clearance being pre budget stocks
The Assistant Collector of Central Excise however held that the question of clearing pre budget stocks duty free did not arise because the products in question were excisable though exempted from the duty
There was an appeal from the said order of the Assistant Collector before the Collector of Central Excise Appeals Bombay
He dismissed the appeal
The appellant went up in appeal before the Tribunal
It was contended before the Tribunal on behalf of the appellant that the goods in question were not leviable to duty under the aforesaid head until 28th February 1987 and the said goods had been made dutiable only by the 313 Finance Bill 1987 88 with effect from 1st March 1987
It was submitted further that on 27th February 1987 the appellant had in their factory a stock of the said product which were fully manufactured packed and ready for sale and the inventory of the said stock was prepared by the Supdt
of Central Excise on 1st March 1987
Reliance was placed on several decisions of the different High Courts namely decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Kirloskar Brothers Ltd vs Union of India  Union of India vs Kirloskar Brothers Ltd  decision of the Bombay High Court in Synthetic Chemicals Pvt
Ltd vs
SC Coutinho  decision of the Bombay High Court in New Chemicals Ltd vs Union of India decision of the Madras High Court in Sundaram Textiles Ltd vs Asstt
Collector of Central Excise  decision of the Allahabad High Court in Union of India vs Delhi Cloth  General Mills On the other hand the revenue contended that the goods forming the pre budget stocks were very much excisable goods and that for the purpose of collecting duty date of manufacture was not material under the scheme of the Act even though the taxable event is the manufacture
It was therefore contended that at the time of manufacture of the goods in question the goods were excisable goods and in view of rule 9A of the Central Excise Rules 1944 though the taxable event is the manufacture and production the payment of duty is related to and postponed to the date of removal of articles from the manufactury
The Tribunal accepted the said contention
We are of the opinion that the Tribunal was right
It is well settled by the scheme of the Act as clarified by sever al decisions that even though the taxable event is the manufacture or production of an excisable article the duty can be levied and collected at a later stage for administra tive convenience
The Scheme of the said Act read with the relevant rules framed under the Act particularly rule 9A of the said rules reveals that the taxable event is the fact of manufacture or production of an excisable article the payment of duty is related to the date of removal of such article from the factory
In that view of the matter the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and rejected the assessee s contention
Appearing before us in support of the appeal Mr Rajiv Dutta learned counsel for the appellant contended that in several decisions it has been held and referred us to the said decisions referred to hereinbefore that the relevant date would be the date of manufacture and in this case the manufacture was complete before the introduction of the budget
It was submitted that until 28th February 1987 when 314 according to Shri Dutta the goods had been manufactured the goods in question were unconditionally exempt from the duty
Under the Finance Bill 1987 88 the said products were made dutiable at the rate of 15 ad valorem on or from 1st March 1987
But the appellant had in their factory a stock of the said products which were duly manufactured according to Shri Dutta packed and ready for sale prior to 28th February 1987
In those circumstances the goods in question according to Shri Dutta would not be subjected to duty at 15 ad valorem
Having considered the facts and the circumstances of the case we are unable to accept this submission
Excise is a duty on manufacture or production
But the realisation of the duty may be postponed for admin istrative convenience to the date of removal of goods from the factory
Rule 9A of the said rules merely does that
That is the scheme of the Act
It does not in our opinion make removal be the taxable event
The taxable event is the manufacture
But the liability to pay the duty is postponed till the time of removal under rule 9A of the said Rules
In this connection reference may be made to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory vs Supdt
of Central Excise 13 where it was decided that the words as being subject to a duty of ex cise  appearing in section 2d of the Act are only descriptive of the goods and not to the actual levy Excisable goods it was held do not become non excisable goods merely by the reason of the exemption given under a notification
This view was also taken by the Madras High Court in Tamil Nadu Madras State Handlook Weavers Cooperative Society Ltd vs Assistant Collector of Central Excise 1978 ELT J 57
On the basis of rule 9A of the said rules the central excise authorities were within the competence to apply the rate prevailing on the date of removal
We are of the opinion that even though the taxable event is the manufacture or the production of an excisable article the duty can be levied and collected at a later date for administrative conven ience
Having regard to the facts and the circumstances of this case and having regard to the scheme of the excise law we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was right and there are no grounds to assail the order of the Tribunal
In the aforesaid view of the matter the appeal must fail and accordingly is dismissed
there will however be no order as to costs
RSS Appeal dis missed


Summary:
The appellant was working as Private Secretary to the Deputy Election Commissioner until July 26 1977 when the Deputy Election Officer under he whom was working relin quished his charge
One Tilak Raj who was working as Private Secretary to Chief Election Commissioner was promoted as Under Secretary
In order to fill the vacancy caused by his promotion Re spondent No 2 ML Sarad was appointed to the said post wef September 11979
The appellant made a representation complaining that the said appointment was contrary to the Election Commission Recruitment of Staff Rules which was rejected on the ground that he was not eligible for appoint ment to the said post
Thereupon the appellant filed a Writ Petition challenging the notification dated 231079 ap pointing the said ML Sarad as Private Secretary
During the pendency of the Writ Petition the Commission under due intimation to the Court amended the 1974 Rules as a result of which entry at serial No 9 relating to the Post of PS to Chief Election Commissioner was omitted
The appellant was informed by the Commission that it had withdrawn the Memo of October 26 1979 wherein it was stated that the appellant was not eligible for appointment to the post in question
The Court took due notice of the amendment but held that the Writ Petition survived since the appellant was not considered for appointment to the post wef 1979
The appellant contended before the High Court that i the entire exercise culminating in the amendment of the Rules was mala fide ii that the amendment conferred arbitrary and unfettered power on the Chief Election Commis sioner to appoint any person as his Private Secretary iii that in case the appellant had been appointed to the post on 1979 subsequent amendment of the Rules would not have operated 250 retrospectively to his detriment and he would have contin ued
The High Court came to the conclusion that the 1979 Rules were not mala fide nor were they arbitrary and that since the memo of 261079 was withdrawn the appellant was entitled to be considered for appointment to the post in question wef 1979
Accordingly the High Court directed the class II Departmental Promotion Committee to consider the case of the appellant to the post in question wef 1979
It further ordered that if the appellant is selected for appointment to the said post his appointment will be deemed to have been made on ad hoc basis from 1979 to December 14 1979 after which 1979 Rules came into opera tion
Monetary benefits were also directed to be paid to the appellant
The appellant being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order preferred Letters Patent Appeal which was summarily rejected on 24780
The appellant has therefore appealed to this Court after obtaining Special Leave
Dismissing the appeal this Court HELD Article 324 confers the power of superintendence direction and control of elections in the Chief Election Commissioner
Free and fair elections are the basic postu lates of any democratic system
A duty is cast on the Chief Election Commissioner to ensure free and fair elections
This makes the post of Chief Election Commissioner a sensi tive one
The Chief Election Commissioner has to deal with several matters which are brought before him by political parties as well as the Government
His office is called upon to handle correspondence which require a high degree of secrecy and confidentiality
He would naturally require the services of his Private Secretary for handling such secret and confidential files and correspondence
Integrity hones ty and competence are the basic hallmarks for the said post
In addition he must be a person in whom the Chief Election Commissioner has absolute trust and faith
It is for this reason that the tenure of the post is made co terminus with the tenure of the Chief Election Commissioner
That is for the obvious reason that a man chosen by the predecessor may not be enjoying the same degree of confidence of his succes sor
He may like to have his own man of confidence to attend to his secretarial work
It is therefore not without reason that the choice of personnel to the post of Private Secretary is left to the Chief Election Commissioner him self
255E G Since consultation with the UPSC was not necessary after the 251 amendment introduction by the 1979 Rules the Chief Election Commissioner was entitled to choose the man of his confi dence as Private Secretary
The choice of Respondent No 2 to the post cannot therefore be questioned
256C