1995 (6) TMI 115 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of exemption notifications regarding manufacturing of lacquered laminated/printed films.
2. Consideration of Board's clarification in the impugned order.
3. Remand of the matter for reconsideration by the lower appellate authority.

Analysis:
1. The appeals concern the manufacturing of lacquered laminated/printed films by claiming exemption under Notification Nos. 53/88 and 14/92. The dispute arose when the Collector (Appeals) held that the notifications did not cover the goods manufactured by the appellant, as they were only purchasing plain films and not integrating the manufacturing process. The original authority had referred to the Board's clarification, but the Collector (Appeals) did not consider it in the impugned order. The appellant argued that the Board's clarification should be taken into account, as it allows exemption for units not integrated if they can prove the intermediate goods were made from duty-paid materials under specific headings.

2. The key contention was whether the lower appellate authority considered the Board's clarification in the impugned order. The Board's clarification stated that the exemption notification did not require integrated units only, allowing non-integrated units to qualify if they could prove the origin of intermediate goods. Since the lower authority did not address this relevant clarification, the Tribunal remanded the matter for reconsideration in light of the Board's clarification. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering all relevant records and providing the appellant with a fair opportunity to present their case.

3. The Tribunal, in its decision, did not express an opinion on the merits of the case or whether the goods fell under the relevant tariff heading. Instead, it set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the lower appellate authority for a fresh examination. The Tribunal highlighted a previous similar case where the issue was remanded for reconsideration. Additionally, Member (T) noted that the lower authority should also assess whether the goods manufactured by the appellant technically fit the description of 'films' under the notifications for exemption eligibility, considering the nature of the laminated products manufactured.

This detailed analysis covers the interpretation of exemption notifications, the consideration of the Board's clarification, and the decision to remand the matter for further review by the lower appellate authority.