9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (1) TMI 182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow cause notices dated 6-2-1981 (Annexures 2 and 3) and 2-3-1982, the first two issued by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, IDO, II Divn. Visakhapatnam and the last by Superintendent, Central Excise, Range VI, Visakhapatnam. By show cause notices dated 6-2-1981 it was proposed to classify the appellant s product coloured polystyrene compounds under residuary Tariff Item No. 68 for the period 18-6-1977 to 10-8-1980 (Annex. 2) and 11-8-1980 to 31-12-1980 (Annex. 3). The details of the duty demanded are set out in annexures to show cause notices. Show cause notice dated 2-3-1982 relates to period 1-11-1981 to 31-1-1982 and is made on the basis of RT 12 returns. In respect of the afore-described product the show cause notice sets out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a letter issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs relating to PVC compounds (and there is no dispute that the product in question is such a compound) held that excise duty payable for the period before 17th June, 1977 will be payable not on the modified polystyrene but on the natural polystyrene. The High Court issued writ in the following terms : In the result, we issue a writ as prayed for by the petitioners quashing the demand for excise duty for the period up to 17th June, 1977. However, excise duty will be payable for this period calculated on the value of the natural polystyrene. In fact, from the statement filed and the facts stated earlier, this duty has already been paid and only the question of excess, whether paid or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... how cause notices were classifiable under Tariff Item No. 68 and chargeable to duty thereunder. The Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras, by order dated 18-1-1982 found against the appellants and upheld the order passed by the Assistant Collector. The appellants then filed revision application under Section 36 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, which is now appeal No. 236/82. In the other appeal No. 454/83 arising out of show cause notice dated 2-3-1982, for the latter period similar order dated 21-4-1982 was passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, II Division, Visakhapatnam. The Appellate Collector by order dated 3-11-1982 following his earlier reasoning upheld the order of the Assistant Collector. Against thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alcutta [1984 (15) E.L.T. 434 (Tribunal)] stated that he would have no comments to make on the appellant s contention that polystyrene which is a polymer after colouring would continue to fall under Tariff Item 15A(i)(ii) as it stood at the material time and not fall under Tariff Item 68. He, however, stated that in respect of uncoloured polystyrene which the appellants cleared from their factory, the appellants were paying appropriate central excise duty. The present dispute was only with respect to uncoloured polystyrene captively consumed by the appellants in their colouring plant within the factory. With respect to such product the question was whether central excise duty should be chargeable at the coloured stage when it is cleared fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ged situation and demand of justice, Shri Ravinder Narain has strongly contended that the basis of the demand of duty was classification under T.I. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff and that having been set aside demand, if any, consequent to classification under T.I. 15A(l)(ii) (ibid) cannot be made or sustained. It is to be remembered that the main dispute between the parties was one of classification-whether the goods fall under one tariff item or the other and when goods have been found to be classifiable under the tariff item claimed by the appellants there is no good reason why the appellants should not be called upon to pay so much of duty appropriately quantifiable under the item claimed by them subject of course to other procedural s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould be the normal time limit of six months from the relevant date as set out in sub-section 3(ii) of section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Applying this limit so much of the duty as in excess of this time limit for the period 18-6-1977 to 10-8-1980 would have to be and is ordered to be set aside. Duty for the remaining period would be re-worked as hereinafter indicated. Duty demand for the period 11-8-1980 to 31-12-1980 covered by Annexure 3 is upheld in the manner hereinafter indicated. This would also be true for duty demand for the period 1-11-1981 to 31-1-1982 covered by show cause notice dated 2-3-1982. (i) Duty demand for the period within limitation would be quantified under Tariff Item 68; (ii) Demands for duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
