9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (4) TMI 186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e proceeded to pass this order after hearing Smt. J.M.S. Sundaram, learned SDR for the Revenue. 3. In the written submissions filed by the respondent, it was submitted that calendering is not a process of manufacture, Since said process was done in other units and other units enjoyed exemption under respective notifications, the same benefit cannot be denied to the respondents under Notification No. 79/82-CE dated 28-2-1982. In the impugned order, the Collector (Appeals) has proceeded to decide the issue observing that only point of consideration is whether calendering is excisable process or not. He held that calendering is not manufacturing process and, accordingly, he set aside the order passed by the Assistant Collector by giving reli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e fabrics and sent it under AR-3As to outside factories for carrying out one of the finishing processes namely calendering with plain rollers and received it back into their factory and cleared it on payment of additional excise duty at the appropriate rate with the reduction of 40% of such rate in terms of proviso (i) of Notification No. 79/82-C.E., dated 28-2-1982. Since the process of calendering was carried out with the aid of the power to the goods in question, the reduced rate prescribed in the notification was denied by the Assistant Collector on the ground that the term of the notification is not applicable. The proviso in the notification, which gives partial exemption is worded as follows :- Provided that :- in the case of ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the aid of power and Notification specially refers to the fabrics processed with the machinery without the aid of power or steam, the Department was justified in denying the concession as prescribed under Notification No. 79/82. Since this view was well considered in the case of M/s. Amar Processors, as it was rightly argued by the Departmental Representative, following the ratio of the aforesaid decision, we set aside the impugned order and, accordingly, the appeal filed by the Department is hereby allowed. Sd/- (G.A. Brahma Deva) Dated : 10-5-1993 Member (J) 5. [Order per : S.K. Bhatnagar, Vice President]. - With due respects to learned Judicial Member, my views and orders in the matter are as follows : 6. I observe that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 19th December 1983 but relates to demand of duty for the period 1-3-1982 to 31-12-1982, that is for the period beyond the normal period of time of six months, but there is no charge of suppression or mis-statement of facts. On the contrary, the respondents have stated before the Assistant Collector that they were regularly filing Classification List claiming, inter alia, the benefit of Notification No. 79/82 and the same had been approved by the Assistant Collector and this fact has not been contradicted/denied or shown to be wrong. Therefore, the demand is also time-barred. 11.In view of the above position, I dismiss the appeal. Sd/- (S.K. Bhatnagar) Dated : 2-9-1993 Vice President DIFFERENCE OF OPINION 12. In view of the di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fication 79/82 would not be applicable. 16.1 Hon ble Vice President as a Technical Member of the Bench who heard the matter has, however held differently inasmuch as the process of calendering with the aid of power or steam is otherwise exempted by Notification 297/79-C.E., dated 24-11-1979. Learned Vice President has further held that in view of Supreme Court s judgment in the case of Mafatlal Fine Spg. Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [1989 (40) E.L.T. 218 (S.C)] process of calendering with plain rollers is not a manufacturing process and therefore, any fabric subjected to the said process cannot be charged any further duty as a processed fabric. In view of this ruling as also on the question of time bar, Learned Vice-Pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icable to a product, the benefit of the same can be allowed to the goods. Therefore, if the process of calendering with plain rollers is otherwise exempt by virtue of Notification 297/79 dated 24-11-1979, benefit of the said notification cannot be denied to the respondents simply because Notification 79/82 has to be read on its own. If we accept the contention of the Revenue, it will lead to anomalies. It is admitted to the respondents that before calendering of the man-made fabric in another factory the respondents have not carried out any process with the aid of power or steam. The respondents were at liberty to sell those goods to the person who was undertaking process of calendering with plain rollers. The subsequent processor could in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
