1997 (7) TMI 223 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Eligibility of parts of storage batteries for exemption under Notification No. 16/55-C.E., dated 18-4-1955.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The appeal involved a dispute regarding the eligibility of parts of storage batteries for the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 16/55-C.E., dated 18-4-1955. The Collector, Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay had previously ruled that the parts of electric batteries falling under a specific item of the Old Central Excise Tariff were not entitled to the exemption under the said notification.

2. The Tribunal heard arguments from both parties and examined the relevant facts and the exemption notification. The notification in question exempted only electric batteries commercially known as stationary batteries. It was noted that the appellants were solely manufacturing parts of storage batteries, not complete batteries, which were then supplied to another company for the assembly of complete batteries.

3. The Tribunal emphasized that the exemption under the notification was limited to a particular type of battery known as stationary batteries. The appellants' products, classified under a specific sub-item of the Central Excise Tariff, did not fall within the scope of the exemption provided by the notification.

4. The Tribunal highlighted the need for strict construction of the exemption notification. It was clarified that not all types of batteries were covered by the exemption, and only the specific type of battery known as stationary batteries was granted the exemption. The appellants' argument that their products should be considered articles of plastics for classification purposes was also addressed.

5. The Tribunal examined a trade notice from the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, which differed from the facts of the current appeal. The containers and covers manufactured by the appellants were sold to a battery manufacturer, unlike the scenario described in the trade notice related to assembling batteries at a site.

6. The Tribunal addressed the appellants' contention that their products should be treated as articles of plastics. It was noted that the appellants had not previously claimed such classification, and their goods had consistently been classified under a specific item of the Central Excise Tariff. The issue of personal hearing before the adjudicating authority was also discussed, with the Tribunal finding that proper hearing had been provided by the appellate authority.

7. After considering all relevant arguments and factors, the Tribunal concluded that there was no merit in the appeal. The appeal was rejected based on the analysis of the exemption notification, the classification of the goods, and the procedural aspects of the case.