9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (2) TMI 214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent. [Order per: D.C. Mandal, Member (T)]. - The issue to be decided in this case is whether Central Excise duty was payable on the Sodium Meta Silicate manufactured by the respondents out of duty-paid Sodium Silicate. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise held that duty was leviable on Sodium Meta Silicate as any variety of Sodium Silicate had to pay duty at the appropriate rate at the ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ken for its manufacture is duty paid." 3. We have heard Smt. J.K. Chander for the appellant. She has argued that duty was payable at the second stage, i.e., at the time of clearance. So, Central Excise duty was payable on Sodium Meta Silicate. She has relied upon this Tribunal's decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Thane v. Indian Dyestuff Industries Ltd., reported in 1986 (1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y-paid Sodium Silicate by conversion by means of chemical or physical process would fall outside the purview of Tariff Item 14BB, but it is now a settled principle of law that a Trade Notice does not have any statutory force and it cannot over-rule a statutory provision. Rule 9(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 provides that "No excisable goods shall be removed from any place where they are pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade Notice issued by the Collector could not over-rule this statutory provision. In the case of Collector of Central Excise, Thane v. Indian Dyestuff Industries Ltd., 1986 (Volume 10 - Part 3) ECC Page T-132, this Tribunal held that the assessable value has to be determined when the goods are removed from any place where they had been produced, cured or manufactured. In the said case, wet cakes of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issible on Sodium Meta Silicate during the relevant period. Further, as the Department did not allege in the demand notices any fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts on the part of the respondents, the demand for duty should be restricted to a period of six months prior to the date of issue of the demand notices on 23-3-1982, i.e., it should be restricted to the period fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
