9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (1) TMI 256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a and Melamine resins are manufactured. These resins are also called and known as Urea Formaldehyde Resins and Melamine Formaldehyde Resins. In the other section moulding powders are manufactured and in the third section chemicals are manufactured. Resins are converted into UF/MF moulding powders by the addition of fillers/additives. Melamine Formaldehyde Moulding Powder and Melamine Formaldehyde Resin are called as MF Moulding Powder and MF resin respectively, and Urea Formaldehyde Moulding Powder and Urea Formaldehyde Resins are called UF moulding powder and UF resin, respectively. On 26th May, 1982, the appellant vide their letter No. DEL/NU/MD/12201 intimated that they had been paying duty on the end product known as UF/MF moulding powders in their case, whereas under Tariff Item 15A(e) the duty was leviable in respect of such powders only on the content of resin and not that of fillers which were later added to the resin and that the language of the Tariff Item was so clear that excluded the value of the fillers which were added to the resin later after the completion of the process of manufacture of resin and that resin itself being only chargeable with duty, it should have b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s had mentioned that earlier they had been paying the duty on moulding powders under mistake of law and the duty was chargeable only at the resin stage. The learned Assistant Collector held that once it was accepted that conversion of resins into moulding powder was a mere modification and not a process of manufacture, it was for the assessee to decide whether the assessee would pay duty at the resin stage or at the moulding powder stage. Accepting the contention of the assessee, the learned Assistant Collector had made an observation that prior to 26th May, 1982 the assessee had opted to pay duty at the moulding powder stage and the duty so collected was correct in law, particularly in view of the fact that moulding powders were also chargeable to duty, if no duty was paid at the prior stage of resins. He had ordered that the benefit of paying duty at the resin stage instead of moulding powder stage was to be effective from 26th May, 1982 and the benefit of payment of duty at the resin stage shall be available only if the same was stored prior to its use for manufacture of moulding powders. 4. The appellant, being not satisfied with the order passed by the learned Assistant Colle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oes not press the other grounds of appeal. 7. Shri A.S. Sunder Rajan, the learned Junior Departmental Representative who has appeared on behalf of the respondent, stales that the appellant's only grievance is against the finding for the period prior to 26th May, 1982. He has got no objection if the findings of the lower authorities are set aside in this regard. On the issue of the storage, Shri Sunder Rajan has argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided in the case of J.K. Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. and Another v. Union of India and Others reported in 1987 (32) E.L.T. 234 that: "The taxing event for excise duty under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act is the production or manufacture of goods and not removal. The explanation added to Rules 9 and 49 by Notification No. 20/82-C.E., contemplated the collection of duty levied on production of a commodity at an intermediate stage of an integrated process of manufacture of another commodity by deeming such production or manufacture of the commodity at an intermediate stage to be removal. This deeming provisions are quite consistent with Section 3 of the Act. Moreover, Rule 9(1), does not require the Collector to specify th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed." It is a settled law that the classification list has to be prospective and not to be retrospective. Tribunal in the case of Brakes India Ltd. and Others v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras and Others reported in 1987 (31) E.L.T. 1030 had held the revised classification list cannot be made retrospectively applicable. Head-note from the said judgment is reproduced below: "There is no indication on record nor has it been urged by the Revenue that certain facts had come to light, after the Superintendent's letter dated 10-12-1979 informing the assessee that brake hose assemblies were classifiable under Tariff Item 16A, necessitating re-opening of the assessment. On the other hand, it appears from the show cause notice that it was merely a change in the interpretation of the Tariff Entry that prompted the issue of the show cause notice. Nor had the Tariff Entry undergone any change after 1-3-1979 during the material period. There had also been no change in the process of manufacture nor any subsequent pronouncement of the High Court or the Supreme Court necessitating reconsideration of the issue. Therefore, while it was open to the Assistant Collector to go into the question o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
