9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (9) TMI 142X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment against the duty payable on the finished product under Notification No. 201 /79-C.E., dated 4.6.1979 as amended; and (ii) Whether the demand for duty is time-barred. Demand was raised by the Department on the ground that the credit was availed of by the appellants wrongly. 2. It is stated in the impugned order that as per manufacturing process of the vegetable product, nickel catalyst is used as a catalytic agent for accelerating or retarding chemical action. The catalytic agent itself does not undergo any change and recovered as such for use again and again. Activated bleaching earth is used for bleaching of colour of the oil taken for hydrogenation and is recovered by filtration to obtain refined oil which is then ready for hydro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ills Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras. Appearing for the Revenue, Shri Durghayya has argued that the case laws cited by Shri Lakhotia are not applicable to the present case as this case related to a period after amendment of the Notification No. 201/79-C.E, by Notification No. 106/82-C.E., dated 28.2.1982 and the goods utilised are neither raw materials nor components. He has relied on this Tribunal s decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh and Another v. Kashmir Vanaspati and Another, reported in 1986 (26) E.L.T. 42 (CEGAT). 4. The operative portion of the Notification No. 201/79-C.E., dated 4-6-1979 reads as follows : In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule(1) of rule 8 of the Central Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as to equivalent to the duty of excise already paid on the inputs. 5. The case reported In 1988 (18) ECR 49 (Cegat) relates to the period prior to amendment of the Notification No. 201/79-C.E., on 28.2.1982 as it appears from the grounds of appeal extracted in paragraph 1 of the said order. Under the unamended notification, the requirement was that the goods falling under Item 68 of GET (i.e. the inputs) were used in the manufacture of finished excisable goods. It was not necessary that the inputs should be used as raw materials and component parts. The present case relates to the period from 1-3-1982 to October, 1983. Therefore, according to the amended Notification No. 201/79-C.E., t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anaspati s case. We find no reason to differ with that decision. The two inputs do not get absorbed in the manufactured end product. They cannot be treated as raw materials for the vegetable product. Accordingly, we hold that the appellants before us are not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 201/79-C.E. Therefore, so far as merit of the case is concerned, we uphold the decision of the lower authorities and reject the contention of the appellants. 6. The lower authorities rejected the appellant s plea of limitation on the ground that the demand was raised under paragraph 4 of the Appendix to the Notification No. 201/79-C.E. Para 4 of the appendix reads as follows :- 4. If the credit of duty paid on inputs has been taken wrongl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
