1997 (7) TMI 309 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 175/86 and subsequent amendments.
2. Applicability of partial exemption under Notification to compounded rubber falling under Chapter Heading 4005.
3. Challenge to the demand of differential duty based on the notification.
4. Jurisdictional conflict between Bombay Collectorate and Pune Collectorate regarding trade notices.

Analysis:

1. The case involved the interpretation of Notification No. 175/86 and its subsequent amendments. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing compounded rubber under Chapter Heading 4005, claimed partial exemption under the notification. The dispute arose when show cause notices were issued, challenging the applicability of the notification and proposing demands of differential duty.

2. Chapter Heading 4005 pertains to compounded rubber, unvulcanised in primary forms or in plates, sheets, or strips. The notification provided exemptions for specific goods falling under certain headings and sub-headings. Initially, goods falling under Heading 4005.00 were not covered by the notification. However, subsequent amendments, particularly Amendment No. 96/89, introduced changes that led to confusion regarding the applicability of the exemption to compounded rubber.

3. The lower authorities held that goods falling under Chapter Heading 40.05 or sub-heading 4005.00 were excluded from the benefit of Notification No. 175/86. The appellant's argument, based on trade notices issued by the Bombay Collectorate, was not considered conclusive as it conflicted with the clarification provided in Trade Notice No. 76/80, emphasizing that goods under Heading 40.05 were not entitled to the exemption.

4. The jurisdictional conflict between the Bombay Collectorate and Pune Collectorate regarding trade notices further complicated the matter. The inconsistency in the interpretation of the notification by different authorities led to the dismissal of the appeals. The Tribunal agreed with the lower authorities that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of the notification. The dismissal of the appeals was based on the understanding that the excisable product manufactured by the appellant did not qualify for the exemption under Notification No. 175/86. Additionally, Appeal No. E/1006/92-C challenging the demand of differential duty based on a letter issued by the Superintendent was deemed not maintainable and was also dismissed.