9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (6) TMI 135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the Registry on 28th July, 1986. Thus the appeal was filed in time. Thereafter, the Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad has filed 12 supplementary appeals and has also filed 12 applications for condonation of delay. Shri S. Chakraborty, the learned JDR who has appeared on behalf of the appellant has pleaded that the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi had disposed of 13 appeals by a common order and as such, the appellant should have filed 13 appeals before the Tribunal, whereas bona-fidely the appellant had filed only one appeal. He pleaded that as soon as the appellant discovered that 12 more appeals are to be filed, he filed the same and the delay in the filing of the supplementary appeals may be condoned. 2. Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, chlorine or otherwise as understood in technology nor is such as is or can be bought and sold in the market." The Assistant Collector did not accept the contention of the respondents and had rejected the refund claim and had also held that the same was time barred. 5. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the Assistant Collector, an appeal was filed before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi in his order observed that the commodity was not marketable and on the analogy of Govt. of India s judgment in the case of Dhrangadhra Chemical Works Ltd. and also Supreme Court judgment in the case of DCM had held that wet chlorine was not marketable and had allowed the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Mathur has relied on the Govt. of India decision reported in 1978 (2) E.L.T. J-713 and also Supreme Court judgment in the case of Delhi Cloth Mills reported in AIR 1963 SC 791 = 1977 (1) E.L.T. (J199). Shri Mathur has pleaded for the dismissal of the appeals. 9. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The issue to be decided is whether the wet chlorine manufactured by the appellant is an excisable commodity in terms of provisions of Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 or classifiable under Tariff Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. We have gone through the judgment of the Govt. of India. Though it is not binding on the Tribunal, but it has got a persuasive value. R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
