9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (2) TMI 216X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in this case), both on the issue of limitation and on the merits of the dispute. In so far as the merits were concerned, the Collector (Appeals) found that masticated rubber made by the respondents out of natural rubber by the process of mastication was not a product different from natural rubber and that, therefore, masticated rubber was not excisable under the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The appellant-Collector has challenged this finding as well as the finding on the issue of limitation. 2. We have heard Smt. D. Saxena, S.D.R., for the appellant-Collector and Shri Joseph Kodianthara, Advocate, for the respondents. 3. At the outset, the counsel for the respondents brought to our notice two decisions on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the report of the Chemical Examiner to the effect that the sample of masticated rubber was composed mainly of natural rubber and that no added ingredient was detected. It was on this basis that the Court held that the process of mastication did not result in a product different from natural rubber. In the present matter, it is seen from the impugned Order-in-Appeal that the masticated rubber produced by the respondents was obtained as a result of mastication of raw rubber but without addition of chemicals so as to obtain a new product. The respondents contention that the process of mastication undertaken by them was nothing but breaking up of raw rubber had not been disputed or controverted by the department. From the Order-in-Original d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... natural rubber undergoes such a change in its nature as to have resulted in a new product having a different name, character and use and known also differently in trade and commerce. On this point we have the benefit, as already noted, of the Kerala High Court s judgment directly on the point at issue. 6. In the circumstances, and respectfully following the Kerala High Court s judgment (supra), we hold that the process of mastication of natural rubber followed by the respondents did not amount to manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act and that such masticated rubber was not excisable under the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. The Collector s contention to the contrary is rejected. 7. In view of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
