9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (10) TMI 126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1979 prior to its amendment on 28-2-1982 by Notification No. 105/82-C.E. was already decided by this Tribunal in its decisions reported in 1986 (25) E.L.T. 295, 1988 (35) E.L.T. 479 and 1989 (39) E.L.T. 327. We have, therefore, heard Shri Chandrasekaran, learned DR for the respondent. 2. By the impugned orders the Collector (Appeals) disposed of two orders-in-original. According to the practice prevailing in this Tribunal, the appellants have filed a supplementary appeal which is now before us for disposal. Since the first appeal was filed in time and there was delay in filing the supplementary appeal, we condone the delay in filing this supplementary appeal and allow the condo nation application. 2A. On merits, the facts of the case ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us. 3. Shri Chandrasekaran appearing for the respondent has stated that according to the Tribunal s decisions reported in 1988 (35) E.L.T. 479 (Tribunal) in the case of Amrit Vanaspati Co. v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut, 1987 (31) E.L.T. 218 (Tribunal) in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh and Another v. Kashmir Vanaspati and Another and the decision contained in Order No. 740/88-C, dated 16-9-1988 in the case of Kusum Products Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, set-off of duty under Notification No. 201/79-C.E. is not admissible in respect of Phosphoric Acid, Nickel Catalyst and Activated Carbon. He has also argued that the set-off of duty paid on Tin Tops and Unprinted paperpolly is not admissible u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... original Notification prior to 1-3-1982. The periods involved in the present two appeals are prior to 28-2-1982 when the scope of the Notification was wider. 5. In the case of Carbon Industries (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras, reported in 1986 (25) E.L.T. 295 (Tribunal), it was held that the term input had wide scope and not of restricted or narrow sense. It was also held that the Notification No. 105/82-C.E., dated 28-2-1982 narrowed down the scope of the 1979 Notification and the expression inputs as a result of which it became necessary that the finished excisable goods should inter alia be made from the Item 68 goods, if they were to earn exemption. The said case of Carbon Industries (P) Ltd. related to period prio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aterials and component parts for the finished goods. It was accordingly held by the Tribunal that the duty-paid burnt/sintered dolomite falling under Item 68 used in the manufacture of steel ingots was entitled to the benefit of said exemption notification. The learned DR has relied on this Tribunal s decision reported in 1987 (31) E.L.T. 218 (Tribunal) (Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh Another v. Kashmir Vanaspati and Another) in which it was held that set-off of duty paid on Nickel Catalyst, Bleaching activated earth and Activated Carbon used in the manufacture of vegetable products was not available under Notification No. 201/79-C.E. But the said case related to a period after amendment of the notification on 28-2-1982 and hence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
