9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (5) TMI 158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in the appeal memo are briefly summarised as under: 3. The respondents are manufacturers of Agarbathies falling under Item No. 68 of the erstwhile First Schedule of the Act (now classified under Heading 3308.10) attracting nil rate of duty. The respondents have been manufacturing the product without the aid of power and they contended that as it is hand-made , it is handicraft coming within the purview of exemption Notification No. 234/82-C.E., dated 1-11-1982. So, they have not taken out central excise licence or filed classification list contending that they are exempt from this procedure under Notification No. 179/77-C.E., dated 18-6-1977. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Eluru, on remand from the Collector of Central E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , whether agarbathies would be covered under heading Handicrafts at Sl. No. 9 of the notification. In Padmini Products case (supra), the production, in question, was not agarbathies but dhoop sticks and so the said judgment is distinguishable and it is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In Mysore Agarbathi Works v. UOI -1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 196) (A.P.), this issue has been decided and as no appeal has been preferred against that order, this has become final. He also cited Arva Cabinet House v. C.C.E. -1989 (44) E.L.T. 785 (Tri.). 7. In reply, the ld. S.D.R. submitted that Mysore Agarbathi Works case (supra) is distinguishable because therein the process involved is hand work only. He also submitted that by Notificati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugh Agarbaties and Dhoop have been considered to be product alike in view of the end-use and the ingredient used, the two are commercially known as separate things. When a person goes to the market to buy Agarbatties, dhoop is not offered in its place and vice versa. Nowhere it has been stated nor any evidence has been produced before us that Agarbatties and dhoops are manufactured by the same process. These occur in different forms. It is not also the plea of the appellants that the Agarbatties are given their essential shape by use of power as in the case of the appellants product and yet the same have been considered by any authority as handicrafts. 10. Again in para 7, it has been stated as under : The dhoop sticks, etc. we have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otification is an amending notification whereby Notification No. 55/75-C.E., dated 1-3-1975 was amended and some more items were added to the list of beneficiaries. By Notification No. 55/75-C.E., the Government exempted goods of the description specified therein and falling under Item No. 68 of the First Schedule of the Act (as was in existence at the relevant time) from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon. 13. Here, we are concerned with Notification No. 234/82-C.E., dated 1-11-1982 which was issued in supersession of Notification No. 104/82-C.E., dated 28-2-1982. Notification No. 104/82-C.E. superseded Notification No. 55/75 and by Notification No. 104/82-C.E., several products falling under Item 68 listed in notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o M/s. Mysore Agarbathi Works, Secunderabad and those of M/s. Ambica Chemical Products, Eluru, in regard to manufacturing operations. As the relevant facts of both the units are identical I find no reason to differentiate M/s. Ambica Chemical Products, Eluru from M/s. Mysore Agarbathi Works, Secunderabad. I also observed that Notification No. 234/82 has not been modified in any manner after the issue of the Notification No. 53/84-C.E., dated 1-3-1984 and it follows that the units which were eligible to exemption prior to 1-3-1984 under the said notification would continue to enjoy the exemption even after the issue of the Notification No. 53/84, dated 1-3-1984, in case where the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court is applicable on the bas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he manufacture of a product does not preclude an article from the category of handicraft when essential character of that product is shaped by use of hand. 16. In that case, the product was T.V. cabinet, but the principle laid down, as excerpted above, can well be followed in the present case also. Moreover, as rightly pointed out by L.A., Sh. Lakshmikumaran, even though the process was not discussed in Mysore Agarbathi Works (supra), as can be seen from the adjudication order, the process followed by the manufacturer in the present case is the same that was being followed by Mysore Agarbathi Works (supra) and both were using the raw-materials, which were pulverised with the aid of power. 17. So, we are satisfied that the Revenue has f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
