1999 (8) TMI 755 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Demand of duty on rubber compound
2. SSI exemption Notification No. 175/86-C.E.
3. Time bar for the demand
4. Imposition of penalty
5. Applicability of Notification No. 115/75-C.E. to rubber compound

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a manufacturer of coil mattresses and coil cushions, also produces rubber compound for captive use. The revenue issued a show cause notice demanding duty on the rubber compound. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, considering the rubber compound as a marketable excisable commodity. The authority rejected the time bar plea and ruled out the applicability of SSI exemption Notification No. 175/86-C.E. Penalty was imposed due to the circumstances.

2. In the appeal, the appellant did not raise the non-marketability plea but argued for full exemption under Notification No. 115/75 based on a previous Tribunal judgment regarding a similar product. The appellant claimed that the rubber compound was identical to the product in the previous case. The advocate cited the Apex Court's judgment in support of the appeal.

3. The Revenue opposed the appellant's contentions, stating that the benefit of Notification No. 115/75 was not previously claimed and suggested remanding the matter for consideration. The Revenue argued that the notification was not applicable as the goods were not manufactured in a Coir Industry.

4. The appellant countered the Revenue's arguments, emphasizing the similarity with the product in the previous case and asserting that their factory was considered a coir industry eligible for the notification. The Tribunal noted the factory's classification as a coir industry and the product's similarity with the one in the previous case, leading to the decision to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.

5. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's position, considering their factory within the coir industry scope and the rubber compound as identical to the product in the previous case. Based on the previous Tribunal judgment, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside, granting consequential relief to the appellant.