9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (2) TMI 324X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of Central Excise duty. A duty of Rs. 1,13,401.33 paise has been demanded by the lower authority in respect of ANFO manufactured and utilised during the period 1-3-1986 to 31-10-1986 holding the goods to be assessable under Chapter Heading 3601.00 treating the same to be prepared explosives. 2. The learned advocate for the appellants pleaded that ANFO is nothing but a simple mixture of Ammonium nitrate and fuel oil. He pleaded that the appellants purchased duty paid prilled Ammonium nitrate assessable under Tariff Heading 68, and mixed 100 units of Ammonium Nitrate with 6 units of furnace oil and a simple mixture thus obtained is what constituted ANFO. He conceded that the mixture so obtained was an explosive, but pleaded that Ammonium ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r to the Explanatory Notes to this for the purpose of under-standing the scope of the Tariff entries under Chapter 36. He pointed out that in the Explanatory Notes under Heading 36.02, prepared explosives have been specifically a covered and ANFO figures under that heading. He pleaded that notwithstanding the fact that Ammonium Nitrate with fuel oil was in the nature of prepared explosive which is a product known differently from Ammonium Nitrate in the trade. In this connection, he stated that internationally also, as seen from the Explanatory Notes to Harmonised coding system, ANFO was recognised as a product apart from Ammonium Nitrate as a prepared explosive. 4. We observe that it is not disputed that the appellants use the explosive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chapter 36 as it answers to the specific description of prepared explosives for the purpose of Central Excise levy. The appellants grievance is also that the lower authority has not considered their plea for Modvat relief in terms of Rule 57-A. We observe that the lower authority has not given any findings on their this plea. In the circumstances, their this plea for Modvat in terms of Provision 57-A and other provisions in (his regard has to be considered. The facts regarding the eligibility of the appellants to the benefit of Modvat under Rule 57-A etc. are not available on record for giving our findings on this plea of the appellants. We, therefore, find it a fit case for remand for this limited purpose. We, in view of the above, upheld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
