9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (3) TMI 231X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hereafter, brought by the appellants and used as catalyst in the manufacture of nitric acid. 2. Appellant's claimed before the lower authorities that, as per provision of Rule 56C of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as it then stood, the goods received by a primary manufacturer could be used in the factory as a raw material/component parts for manufacture of excisable goods, without payment of Central Excise duty. This claim was rejected on the ground that a catalyst cannot be considered as a raw material. 3. Appellants then claimed that they should be given the benefit of Notification No. 118/75-C.E., dated 30-4-1975, which exempted goods falling under Tariff Item 68, manufactured in a factory and intended for use in the factory in which they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as a raw material. 10. Responding, Shri J.N. Nigam, reiterates the view taken by the lower authority. He adds that the factory of secondary manufacturer under Rule 56C cannot become a factory of manufacture for purposes of Notification No. 118/75. He also adds that Notification No. 118/75 is for purposes of grant of an exemption. It should, therefore, be interpreted strictly in terms of plain wordings of the notification. He relies on 1979 E.L.T. (J 501) - Coromandal Fertilizers Ltd. v. Union of India and Three Others. 11. We have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions made before us. Appellants were granted permission to avail of special procedure for the movement of finished goods falling under Tariff Item 68. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... get the benefit available to raw materials or component parts under Rule 56C, special procedure. 13. The question then comes whether appellants can be allowed to fall back on their claim of benefit of Notification No. 118/75-C.E., dated 30-4-1975, which exempts goods falling under Central Excise Tariff Item 68, manufactured in a factory and intended for use in the factory in which they are manufactured or in any other factory of the same manufacturer. The lower authorities have rightly held that the gauges are not manufactured by the appellants in their own factory. Appellants have claimed that since they were considered as the primary manufacturers of the gauges for purposes of Rule 56C, therefore, the factory of the secondary manufacture ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
