9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (11) TMI 186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the Appellate Collector, Central Excise, Calcutta, dated 31-7-1981. The entire dispute relates to the demands raised by the Superintendent in the RT 12 s for the months of April, 1975 to July, 1975. The respondents showed payment of duty cleared on electrical grade aluminium manufactured by them at 30% ad valorem availing the benefit of Notification 42/75 dated, 1-3-1975 as amended by Notification 111/75 dated, 30-4-1975. The demand for duty amounting to Rs. 16,34,250/- was confirmed by the Assistant Collector in his order, dated 6-1-1978. The Assistant Collector was of the view that the respondents had not satisfied the conditions of the Notification. The appeal was filed to the Appellate Collector. Before the Appellate Collector (App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Aluminium (Control) Order, 1970. He contended that in the absence of such proof or declaration as contemplated under the Notification the Appellate Collector was not justified in allowing the appeal. 5. Shri D.P. Anand, Consultant appeared for the respondents. He reiterated the contentions raised by him in the reply to the show cause notice issued by the Government. The salient features of his arguments are as follows. The show cause notice issued by the Government was misconceived, unjustified and without any legal basis because the allotment receipt and disposal of the subject goods were all made in terms of the Aluminium (Control) Order, 1970 and the respondents were fully eligible for the concessional rate of duty. The respondents ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the order, the respondents have not produced the other documents. He, therefore, urged that the respondents have conformed to the requirements of Notification 42/75 and the notice should be quashed. 6. For the purposes of understanding the controversy, it is necessary to reproduce Notification 42/75 dated, 1-3-1975. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (i) of rules 8 of the C/Excise Rules, 1944, the C/Government hereby exempts aluminium falling under items No.27 of the first schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) declared by the manufacturer to be of electrical conductor grade and required by the Central Government to be supplied and distributed in accordance with the provision contained in the alu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f E.C. Grade. If further proof is required, we find from the licence granted to the respondents that they manufacture E.C. Grade Aluminium Wire Rods. The Ministry of Steel Mines have also sent the communication, dated 26-5-1972 to that effect. On 13-5-1974 the Government of India, D.G.T.D. (Engineering Export Promotion Cell) have indicated the allotment of 60 tonnes EC Grade of aluminium to the respondents. On 26-6-1974, the Heavy Electrical Directorate has called for detailed statement of pending orders in regard to the electrical grade aluminium to be allocated to the respondents from the primary producers. On 1-8-1974, a communication was sent to the respondents regarding the allocation of EC Grade aluminium for the period 1974-75. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the RT 12. The documents, dated 13-5-1974 speaks only of allocation of raw material to the respondents. The communication, dated 26-6-1974 makes mention of a detailed statement to be furnished. The 3rd document, dated 1-8-1974 refers to allocation of EC Grade Aluminium to the respondents. Of course, there is a mention in this document that the quantity of aluminium had been placed at the disposal of the Central Water Power Commission for release in favour of the respondents. The letter, dated 8-8-1974 makes mention of allotment of raw material from certain primary producers. The respondents have been asked to furnish progress reports in regard to quantity of conductors supplied against each order. There is a mention of order placed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e apart from the accounts and registers. 7. The Appellate Collector has reached the conclusion that the respondents were entitled to the benefit of Notification 42/75 mainly on the basis of six documents. We are of the view that this finding is not justified because most of the documents are only in regard to the allotment of raw materials and the one or two documents which refer to the supply and distribution, do not cover the entire quantity of aluminium products manufactured. At the same time we cannot ignore that the respondents should have been governed by the provisions of the Aluminium (Control) Order and should by producing relevant allotment orders, invoices and other documents, establish conclusively that the products manufactur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
