9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (12) TMI 184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resent case is correct in law especially when Solvent 75 and Paraldehyde are emerging in the process after such Ethyl Alcohol is used in the manufacture of specified final product? 4. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Solvent 75 can be treated as finished excisable goods merely for the reason that the composition of Solvent 75 has been given? 5. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, Paraldehyde can be treated as a by-product, if not waste? 6. Whethter in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in holding that there is no time limit under Rule 57P? 7. Whether time limit prescribed under Section 11A will be applicable to disallowance of money credit under Rule 57P. 2. The brief facts leading up to the application are as follows: The applicants are engaged in the manufacture of products like Butyl Alcohol (Butanol). Butyl Acetate, Acetaldehyde, Acetic Acid and Ethyl Acetate. In the Butyl Acetate Section, first crude butanol is produced. This is further processed and pure Butanol is recovered. The impurities present in the crude Butanol are taken out from the bottom of the column. The mixture containing impurities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rable question of law as held by the Hon ble Orissa High Court in the case of CCE v. India Metal and Ferro Alloys Ltd., reported in 1992 (61) E.L.T. 425. Lastly he pleads that the question whether the time limit prescribed under Section 11A would apply to disallowance of money credit under Rule 57P is a question of law on which there is no pronouncement of any High Court or of the Supreme Court and, therefore is a question of law which requires to be referred and in support of this contention he cites the order of the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Maradia Steel P. Ltd., reported in 1992 (59) E.L.T. 59. 5. Opposing the application Shri M.M. Mathur, JCDR submits that no questions of law requiring reference arise out of the order of the Tribunal as the findings that both Solvent-75 and Paraldehyde are in the nature of final products and not waste/by-products are findings of fact, based on the chemical composition and process of manufacture of the two. He further contends that the money credit scheme is an independent scheme and that Rule 57P is a self-contained provision not requiring reading into it of the ingredients of Section 11A CESA, 1944. He therefore, prays for rejection of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orrect in law especially when Solvent 75 and Paraldehyde are arising in the course of manufacture of specified final product? 3. In any event of the matter, whether denial of money credit on Ethyl Alcohol in the present case is correct in law especially when Solvent 75 and Paraldehyde are emerging in the process after such Ethyl Alcohol is used in the manufacture of specified final product? 4. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Solvent 75 can be treated as finished excisable goods merely for the reason that the composition of Solvent 75 has been given? 5. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, Paraldehyde can be treated as a by-product, if not waste? 6. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in holding that there is no time limit under Rule 57P? 7. Whether time limit prescribed under Section 11A will be applicable to disallowance of money credit under Rule 57P. 10. The brief facts leading up to the application are as follows: The applicants are engaged in the manufacture of products like Butyl Alcohol (Butanol). Butyl Acetate, Acetaldehyde, Acetic Acid and Ethyl Acetate. In the Butyl Acetate Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of acetaldehyde in the manufacture of paraldehyde does not disentitle the applicants to the benefit of money credit scheme. Since this point which was raised in the appeal has not been dealt with, it gives rise to a referable question of law as held by the Hon ble Orissa High Court in the case of CCE v. India Metal and Ferro Alloys Ltd., reported in 1992 (61) E.L.T. 425. Lastly he pleaded that the question whether the time limit prescribed under Section 11A would apply to disallowance of money credit under Rule 57P is a question of law on which there is no pronouncement of any High Court or of the Supreme Court and, therefore is a question of law which requires to be referred and in support of this contention he cited the order of the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Maradia Steel P. Ltd., reported in 1992 (59) E.L.T. 59. 13. Opposing the application Shri M.M. Mathur, JCDR submits that no questions of law requiring reference arise out of the order of the Tribunal as the findings that both Solvent-75 and Paraldehyde are in the nature of final products and not waste/by-products are findings of fact, based on the chemical composition and process of manufacture of the two. He furthe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
