9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (9) TMI 237X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and then place them in the cartons containing the paints. The appellants had prior to March 1981 declared the catalyst as falling under TI 68 the Assistant Collector had approved the classification list and duty was paid under TI 68 since December 1975. The appellants observed that no duty of excise was leviable on the catalyst since it is not manufactured by them. They filed a fresh classification list NES/2/80-81 dated 18-3-1983, with the Superintendent, Range VIII, Thane Division. The Assistant Collector vide his letter dated 21st August 1982 admitted that the catalyst is a bought out item and the question of classification does not arise. But he however, held that since the bottles of catalyst are packed in the same carton of paints, the price of catalyst ought to be included in the assessable value of the later product. On appeal, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) held that the appellants deliberately suppressed the information and therefore, extended period of limitation is available to the Department. Hence this appeal. 4. Shri Divekar, learned Consultant stated that the catalyst in question is a bought out item and the same are repacked and inserted into the cart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rect to claim separate classification and to assess them differently. 8. Hence, in so far as the merits of the case are concerned, I find that the order of the Collector (Appeals) is correct and is required to be upheld. 9. In so far as the question of time bar is concerned, it is observed that prior to March 1981 they had declared the catalyst as falling under Item 68 and the Assistant Collector had approved the classification. They had also declared Eomite Air drying Catalysed Paint and the same was classified by the Department under 14A(5). This contention is not being disputed or shown to be incorrect by the Department. In fact, if duty on catalyst was being separately charged with reference to a separate classification list, it is not clear as to how the prices would have remained undeclared or not brought to the notice of the Department. At the same time the documents which have been included in the paper book and brought to our notice only show classification list relating to the period prior to the period in question before us or subsequent to the period in question before us. Therefore, the position as it obtained during the relevant period is not clear and this aspect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d fix a date. Sd/- (Harish Chander) 22-1-1992 13. [Order per : P.C. Jain, Member (J)]. - Following points of difference between the two Members of C Bench has arisen for my opinion : (1) Whether the base paint and the catalyst are two distinct excisable items/commodities which are required to be classified and assessed separately or they together constitute a single excisable item and are required to be dealt with as such? (2) Whether in view of the fact that one of the component (catalyst) is purchased from the market no duty is leviable with reference to this component and its value is to be excluded for assessment purposes? (3) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the impugned order was required to be upheld on merits but remanded for reconsideration for time bar aspect (as proposed by the Vice President) or the order was required to be set aside and the appeal was required to be allowed with consequential relief [as proposed by the Hon ble Member (Judicial)]. Brief facts as mentioned in the impugned order of the lower appellate authority leading to the aforesaid controversy are given below: The appellant purchased catalyst from the market and it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent was manufacturing aluminium medium and cleared the same on payment of duty under tariff item 14 CET relating to paints. After clearance the respondents therein packed the same alongwith aluminium paste in common cartons outside the factory. The aluminium paste was duty paid and procured from outside. The two products were packed separately and put in common carton. It was marketed as aluminium paste. The respondents paid duty only on the aluminium medium manufactured by them and cleared the same from their factory. The Asstt. Collector demanded duty from the respondents on the products marketed as aluminium paint. The lower appellate authority in that case observed as follows : When the fact that the Aluminium Paste is packed with Aluminium Paint in a separate tin container and later on put in a double container and sold as Aluminium Paint and these operations are carried out in a duty paid store room of the appellant is not disputed, the demand of duty in this ease is not justified. The appellants have already submitted enough evidence that they were allowed to receive the duty paid aluminium paint from outsider and despatched it alongwith a paste from their duty paid st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
