9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (2) TMI 358X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ector of Central Excise, Calcutta by his order-in-original No. 54/82, dated 31-3-81/6-11-1982 is barred by limitation. 2. It might be stated that originally the appellants had also raised the question of proper classification of the appellants produce - whether it is varnish alkyd resin or modified alkyd resin but this plea was given up at the hearing on 8-8-1986. The same is also true of the plea regarding valuation which was on the same date given up by Shri K.K. Banerjee, learned Advocate representing the appellants, that is how the only issue surviving for decision is one of limitation. 3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of synthetic resins and varnishes. Appellants filed Classification List No. 3, dated 26-7-1977 with r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellants to show cause why their products be not classified as varnish under T.1.14(II)(i) in place of Alkyd Resin under T.1. 15A(I)(i) as contended by the appellants. The appellants filed reply dated 7-2-1978 before the Assistant Collector again setting out the composition of their product explaining how their product is different from varnish and maintaining that they were only Alkyds. Assistant Collector taking into consideration the arguments advanced by the appellants during personal hearing again referred the matter to the .Chemical Examiner on 16-3-1978 to communicate his opinion on the grounds advanced by the party during arguments. The ground urged during arguments was that 'additive' used in the manufacture of the products ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, confirmed the demand. The appellants approached the Collector of Central Excise in revision. The Collector held that the goods were alkyd resin blended with synthetic resin beyond the scope of exemption Notification 122/71-C.E., dated 1-6-1971 as amended. About legality of the second show cause notice dated 27-7-1979 in supersession of the first one dated 4-1-1978 he held that this was done to observe the principle of natural Justice when further material, authoritative information was available from the Chemical Examiner for the said goods. He held that there was no legal bar to issue the second show cause notice in supersession of the first one which lost its relevance in the adjudication order under review. About question of time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
