1988 (4) TMI 194 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Determination of whether the appellants manufactured and sold "rapid hardening cement" as "ordinary portland cement" during specific periods.

Analysis:
- The case involved a dispute regarding the type of cement manufactured and sold by the appellants during certain periods. Central Excise Officers raised concerns after examining test certificates from the National Test House, suggesting that the cement produced was rapid hardening cement instead of ordinary portland cement. The Collector of Central Excise imposed duty and a penalty based on this assessment.

- The appellants contended that they only produced ordinary portland cement, as evidenced by their invoices and agreements with government bodies. They highlighted the price disparity between rapid hardening cement and ordinary portland cement under the Cement Control Order. The appellants also emphasized that the National Test House's certificates should be considered final proof of the cement quality.

- The opposing argument, presented by the JDR, supported the Collector's comparison of data from the National Test House, indicating that the cement cleared by the appellants matched the characteristics of rapid hardening cement.

- The Tribunal analyzed the standards for compressive strength of both rapid hardening cement and ordinary portland cement. It was established that rapid hardening cement needed to achieve a specific strength within 24 hours, unlike ordinary portland cement, which required 72 hours. The Tribunal agreed that the samples in question did not undergo this crucial test. They acknowledged the credibility of the National Test House and its confirmation that the samples met the specifications for ordinary portland cement.

- Considering all evidence, including gate passes, invoices, and the Cement Control Order, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants did not manufacture rapid hardening cement but only ordinary portland cement. They found no reason to dispute the National Test House's findings and accepted the appellants' assertions, thereby allowing the appeal and ruling in their favor.