1988 (2) TMI 169

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n them in that connection. After receipt of reply the Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad adjudicated on the matter and under order dated 24.3.1982 held that duty was payable but limited the demand to the six months period preceding the notice. He did not impose any penalty. The revision petition preferred against the said order to the Central Board of Excise and Customs is, on transfer, the deemed appeal before us. 2. We have heard Shri D.N. Mehta, advocate for the appellants and Shri Sachar for the department. 3. Before us Shri Mehta contended that the sawn Paratty and saw dust are not excisable products manufactured by the appellants and so no duty could be demanded thereon. His further contention was that in any event these goods .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... E.L.T. 478) that sawn Timber would not be an excisable product, the reason being that even after sawing timber remains timber only. The appellants, further rely on the decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Indore v. M.P. Veneer and Plywood (P) Ltd. (1986 Vol. 23 E.L.T. 255) where the issue related to certain portion of sawn timber which contained knots, flowery grains, cracks etc. and were, therefore, not suitable for manufacture of veneers and were being cleared from the factory as timber waste. Shri Mehta submitted that paratty would be covered by this case. We are not convinced with this argument since the above said waste was found by the authorities to be useable for manufacture of wooden furniture though not veneers. It .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ss (Bhagad) would not be an excisable product. Shri Sachar contended that the sawn paratty and saw dust would be in the nature of by-products and would therefore be liable for duty as manufactured articles in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in the. DCM case (1977 E.L.T. 199). His submission was that in the said judgment the Supreme Court held Soap stock, emerging as a by-product in the course of manufacture of vegetable product, an excisable article. We do not find that the Supreme Court had held so in the said judgment. The judgment was that the refined oil (arising as intermediate product during the manufacture of vegetable products) was also an excisable product. We are, therefore, unable to accept the submission that the judg .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X