9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (7) TMI 269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Excise Tariff, which were to be used in the manufacture of products falling under Item No. 14 of the Central Excise Tariff (hereafter C.E.T.) 2. The department s case is that M/s. Garware Paints Ltd. used these raw materials not directly in the manufacture of products falling under Item No. 14 of the C.E.T., but in the manufacture of Alkyd Rosins falling under Item No. 15-A of the C.E.T. which were exempt from payment of Central Excise duty vide Notification No. 122/71, dated 1-6-1971. It is admitted that Alkyd Rosins so manufactured were further consumed in the production of products falling under Item No. 14 of the C.E.T. It is submitted on behalf of the department that since Alkyd Rosins were exempt from payment of Central Excise du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Responding. Shri G.R. Divekar Consultant has reiterated the view taken by the Collector (Appeals) and strongly relied on both the Trade Notice and the Bombay High Court judgment cited supra. Apart from this, he has stated that the demand of duty is time barred. It is also urged that duty is being demanded even for period during which appellants had in fact not availed of the proforma credit. 8. The facts of the case and the submissions made by both sides have been carefully considered. It is seen that in the decision that the Collector (Appeals) has taken, he relied on the Trade Notice issued by the Bombay Central Excise Collectorate, a copy of which has been filed by the respondent with his Cross Objections. The relevant extract of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e that the inputs is question are going into the production first of Alkyd Rosins which emerge as intermediate products, but it is not denied that those intermediate products go into the final production of notified finished products. In the case of M/s. Indian Aluminium Company Ltd., the High Court of Bombay had rightly observed that if the raw material brought under Rule 56A is used in the manufacture of any finished excisable goods which are notified and during the course of such manufacture, any non-dutiable intermediary products emerges, then it cannot be said that the raw material was not used in the manufacture of the finished notified goods. The ratio of the Bombay High Court decision is fully applicable to the facts of this case. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
