1986 (10) TMI 142 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicability of Notification No. 97/84-C.E. dated 23-4-1984 under Section 11C of the Central Excises and Salt Act.
2. Error apparent from the record in the order dated 11-12-1985.
3. Interpretation of Notification No. 97/84 and its applicability to the case.
4. Consideration of job work basis for printing on tin sheets.
5. Majority and minority opinions on the eligibility of the appellants for the benefit of Notification No. 97/84.

Analysis:

1. The case involved a challenge to the dismissal of E-Appeal No. 1157/81-D of M/s. Neelam Tin Industries under Order No. D-438/85. The appellants claimed their case was covered by Notification No. 97/84-C.E. dated 23-4-1984. They argued that the order dated 11-12-1985 had an error apparent from the record as the notification was not considered before passing the order.

2. The Tribunal reviewed the events leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The appellants had filed the notification on 9-12-1985, before the order was issued. The Tribunal acknowledged that the notification was not taken into account before the order was passed, constituting an error apparent from the record necessitating reconsideration of the order.

3. The Tribunal examined the content of Notification No. 97/84 and its requirements. It was noted that the notification applied to cases where printing was done before the tin sheets were supplied to the manufacturers. In this instance, the printing was done after the receipt of tin sheets, albeit not within the appellants' premises. Citing a previous Tribunal decision, it was concluded that the benefit under the notification was not available to the appellants.

4. The issue of job work basis for printing on tin sheets was raised. The Tribunal deliberated on whether the printing, done on behalf of the appellants, could be considered as done by others with the aid of power as per the notification's requirements. The Tribunal determined that the printing arranged by a person other than the licensee did not meet the criteria for availing the benefit of the notification.

5. The Tribunal considered the majority and minority opinions on the eligibility of the appellants for the benefit of Notification No. 97/84. While the majority opinion dismissed the application, the minority opinion held that the benefit of the notification was available to the appellants. Ultimately, the majority decision prevailed, leading to the recall of the earlier order and allowing the appeal based on the majority opinion's interpretation of the notification.