9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (8) TMI 213X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kerala Chemicals and Proteins Ltd. Kathikudam are licensed under T.I. 68 to manufacture Ossein and Di-calcium Phosphate. The process of manufacture, as declared by the appellants is as follows : Crushed animal bones duly cleaned are pumped to the acid bath where it is treated with HC1 acid. Calcium Phosphate Carbonate and other mineral matters in the bones are dissolved in the acid leaving behind the organic matter - Ossein. The dissolved minerals are pumped out in the form of acid solution to the DSP reactor. Lime slurry prepared in the suspension tank is also fed to this reactor to neutralise the acid solution. Di-calcium Phosphate is then precipitated. The supernatant liquid after the reaction, is siphoned out and drained. The Di-calc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants stopped paying duty on their products, namely, Ossein and di-calcium and applied for and obtained refund of the duty paid during the period and the balance in P.L.A. aggregating to Rs. 41,200/- vide the Assistant Collector s order dated 28-6-1980. Subsequently, the Supdt. of Central Excise vide his letter dated 30-12-1980 informed the appellants that Ossein is not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 221/79 and also directed them to submit a revised classification list. In compliance the appellants filed their fresh classification list showing Ossein as chargeable to duty under Tariff Item 68 and Di-calcium phosphate as exempted under Notification No. 55/75 dated 1-3-1975 as amended. The Assistant Collector approved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal the Collector (Appeals) rejected the appeal filed by the appellants holding that di-calcium phosphate is neither a bone product, nor an animal feed and consequently the appellants were not eligible for exemption from duty in respect of di-calcium phosphate, either or the ground that it was a bone product, or that it was an animal feed. In support of his view he followed his earlier order-in-appeal No. 109/84 (Md) dated 22-8-1984. It appears that it was also unsuccessfully contended before the Collector (Appeals) that the demand should be restricted to the period of six months and the demand would, therefore, cover clearances effected from 15-8-1982. 6. We have heard Shri A.N. Haskar, Advocate duly assisted by Shri S.K. Goel, Advoca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was held that the same shall be classified under T.I. No. 14 HH of the CET. 8. In reply Shri V.M. Doiphode, learned SDR while supporting the impugned order submitted that the said decision rendered in the case of M/s. Protein Products of India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, supra is distinguishable on the facts of the present case. He also submitted that the issue stands finally decided against the appellants vide Adjudication Order C. No. V/68/30/33/83 dt. 23-7-1984 referred to in the impugned Adjudication Order-in-Original dated 7-8-84 wherein it was held that the di-calcium phosphate produced by the appellants has been correctly classified under T.I. 68, without any exemption as effective from 2-3-81. Against that judgment the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
