1996 (11) TMI 178 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Revenue's appeal against the extension of Notification No. 75/84 to the respondents, manufacturing paraffin wax from slack wax and microffin wax. Interpretation of the notification criteria, consideration of the characteristics of the final product, and the issue of limitation regarding the issuance of show cause notices.

Analysis:
1. The revenue contended that the benefit of Notification No. 75/84 for paraffin wax manufactured from slack wax is not applicable when mixed with microffin wax, as the characteristics of the final product differ significantly. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the revenue argued that the notification specifies the use of slack wax exclusively for manufacturing paraffin wax. The process of manufacturing paraffin wax from a mixture of slack wax and microffin wax is distinct, thus disqualifying the respondents from the notification's benefits.

2. In response, the counsel for the respondents argued that despite the addition of other waxes, paraffin wax should be considered as manufactured from slack wax. Referring to a Supreme Court case involving TISCO, it was asserted that the initial show cause notice (SCN) was followed by a second SCN issued beyond the statutory six-month limitation period. The respondents maintained that they disclosed all relevant information in their classification list, negating any suppression of facts and limiting the applicable period for invoking the statute of limitation to six months.

3. The Tribunal observed that the use of microffin wax alongside slack wax to produce paraffin wax was admitted. While the notification stipulates the use of slack wax, the critical issue was whether the final product met the notification's criteria. Distinguishing the case from precedent where both duty-paid and non-duty paid materials were used, the Tribunal held that the characteristics of the components used in manufacturing the final product were pivotal. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the inclusion of microffin wax rendered the respondents ineligible for the notification's benefits.

4. Regarding the limitation period for the issuance of show cause notices, the Tribunal noted that an earlier SCN was not separately adjudicated upon, despite a personal hearing conducted by another Assistant Collector. Subsequently, a second SCN was issued within the six-month period, covering both the earlier and additional periods. As the original order addressing the goods was passed within the stipulated time frame, the Tribunal deemed the demand to be within the statutory limitation. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the revenue's appeal, setting aside the lower authority's decision in favor of the respondents.