9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (4) TMI 175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... insulation and then being brought back to the factory of the Petitioner for further processes. 2. In order to appreciate the aforesaid purported question of law brief facts of the case as found by the Tribunal are set out below :- The appellant company is a manufacturer of insulated wires and cables of various sizes and specifications. It added a new item namely copper winding wire in its range of products. It appears that the company did not have enough insulation capacity of bare copper wires to meet the demands of its customers. It was, therefore, drawing copper wires from duty paid copper rods in the factory and thereafter wanted to send the copper wires so drawn for further processing i.e. insulation with PVC compound to another ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lication is a question of law because it involves interpretation of Rules 56B and 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Findings of the Tribunal on interpretation of Rule 56B as given in paras 5 and 6 of the Tribunal s Order No. A/301/89-NRB dated 28-7-89 are reproduced below:- 5. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced on both sides. We agree with the learned advocate that Rule 56B does not, in terms, make a distinction that the semi-finished goods and the finished goods should fall under the same heading or sub-heading of the Central Excise Tariff. Nevertheless, it is to be noted that both Rule 56B and Rule 9 are part of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Neither of these rules is subject to the other rule. It is a well settled pri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the approved places of storage without payment of duty. Removal of excisable goods for captive consumption is also not permitted without payment of excise duty. When that being the law, the Collector under Rule 56B cannot permit removal of a finished excisable goods for the manufacture of a different excisable goods. The application of the Reliance was for removal of POY for the manufacture of textured filament yarn. As has been held by us both POY and textured yarn are two different excisable articles and the removal of one excisable article for manufacture of another without payment of duty, would violate Rule 9 of the Rules. The contention of Nariman that the removal will only result in postponemnt of duty cannot be accepted. Even as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
