9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (6) TMI 207X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... actured by the respondents during the period 18-7-77 to 31-3-1978 and the duty amount involved is Rs. 4451.80 P. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents manufactured goods falling under Tariff item 68 CET on their account as also on job work basis. The value of the capital investment made on plant and machinery in the respondents unit was found to be over Rs. 20 lakhs and they were held to be liable to pay Central Excise duty and not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 176/77, dated 18-6-1977. In the proceedings before the Original authority, the appellants pleas are recorded as under - In reply to the show cause notice, the said company in their written submission dated 30th August, 1982 contended inter alia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng under item 68 in the proceeding financial year or during the current financial year 1977-78 falls within the limit prescribed in Notification No. 176/77, dated 16-6-1977. Accordingly in view of Notification No. 31/76, dated 28-6-1976 issued under rule 174-A, of Central Excise Rules, 1944, the goods falling under item No. 68 stand exempted from the licensing control so long such goods are fully exempted from duty." 3. The Original authority s findings in this regard are also reproduced below for convenience of reference - I have gone through the merit and legal aspect of the case and duly considered the arguments advanced by the said company in the written submissions as well as in their oral submission. I find that to be eligible ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is found that the sum total of the value of capital investment in plant and machinery installed in the industrial unit had exceeded Rs. 10 lakhs and the factory was not entitled for any concession granted under the Notification No. 176/77, dated 18-6-1977. As regards dutiability of the products manufactured by the said company as falling under Tl 68, the company s claim that the printed cartons and despatched machine plates are products of the printing industry is not at all tenable. It has been clarified by Govt. of India that printed carbons are not product of printing industry rather it is a product of packaging industry and hence not entitled to any concession granted under Notification No, 55/75, dated 1-3-1975 despatcheed machin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or manufactured and intended to be removed by the assessee. We pointed out to him that the printing cartons as such have not been mentioned therein. He pointed out that the respondents had made pleas before the lower authorities that at the relevant time, the value of plant and machinery in terms of the Govt. of India s instructions as mentioned in the original authority s order in a unit was, required to be reckoned only by taking into consideration in a unit the machinery which was utilised for the manufacture of item 68 goods only. He also stated that in terms of the orders of the Govt.of India in respect of printed cartons no duty was leviable thereon. 7. We find that the appellants have cited before us the decision of Govt. of India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
