9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (8) TMI 145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bond with the cash security of Rs. 5,000/- and the same had not been produced in terms of B. 11 Bond executed by the assessee. Therefore, the Collector ordered them to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/- towards the value of the seized goods released in terms of B. 11 Bond executed by them. The amount of Rs. 5,000/- deposited in cash as aforementioned has been appropriated against the fine of Rs. 15,000/-. The remaining amounts of Rs. 10,000/- has been demanded from them. The Learned Collector has also held that the goods contained in 24 barrels weighing 4260 Ltrs valued at Rs. 25,000/- seized on 24-11-1981 are also liable for confiscation under Rule 196 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 as the goods had been provisionally released on their execution of B. 11 Bond with Bank guarantee of Rs. 6,000/- and as the goods so released had not been produced by the assessee in terms of B. 11 Bond executed by them. Therefore, an amount of Rs. 6,000/- deposited in the form of Bank guarantee has been appropriated towards the value of the seized goods in terms of B. 11 Bond executed by them. The appellants had earlier filed an appeal in terms of the earlier order-in-original. The Tribunal after careful exam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee factory and also the statement of Shri L.H. Porwal, Director of the factory. It was also found that they had mis-utilised the benefit of the said Notification by receiving 12,000 Ltrs. of the raw materials in excess. Therefore, they were issued with a show cause notice alleging violation of certain Central Excise Rules 1944 and calling upon them to show cause as to why penalty and confiscation of seized goods valued at Rs. 59,336.00/- and Rs. 25,000/- against recovery of duty on 337.500 Kltrs of Solvent CIX should not be recovered and as to why withdrawal of concession granted to them under Rule 196 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 should not be done. 3. The assessee filed their reply contending that they had obtained L. 6 Licence and after permission had procured the impugned goods as per the Notification and accordingly they used Solvent CIX in the manufacture of special purpose Solvent and thinners by distillation/chemical treatment and/or blending, and that they had been submitting the particulars of such use to the concerned officers along with regular returns. They had also stated that the goods produced by them is special purpose Solvent and thinners falling unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show that the solvent and the thinners were being classified as miscellaneous items and even in the commercial market, solvent and thinners were known as chemicals. As regards 12000 Ltrs. of solvent CIX received from the IPCL, they submitted that the same had been entered twice, once on 31-3-1981 and again on 1-4-1981 and as such submissions of two sets of D-3 received for the same consignments does not arise and this was clarified by their Director in his statement. They had stated that the department did not produce any evidence on receipt of two consignments by them. The appellants had also filed affidavits of four persons in support of their contention that their product is commercially different from Solvent CIX. 4. The Learned Collector after careful consideration of the entire material and the submissions placed before her has held that the assessee had not carried out any chemical process on the solvent CIX and that they had not used the same in the manufacture of chemicals and chemical formulations. The Learned Collector has relied on the admissions made by the assessee that no other ingredient is added with the Solvent CIX. The Learned Collector has held after examining ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed otherwise and therefore, the larger period was invokable. 5. We have heard Shri L.C. Porwal, Director for the appellants and Shri J.P. Singh, the Learned DR for the Revenue. 6. The representative appearing for the appellants submitted that the activity of manufacture is within the knowledge of the department and hence, larger period is not invokable. He also submitted that proviso to Rule 196 cannot be invoked for confiscation of the goods and for imposing penalty/fine. He submitted that there is no violation of any rules under Chapter X as they had utilised the goods obtained from IPCL for manufacturing of chemical or chemical formulations. He submitted that the process of distillation and/or blending, carried out by them in terms of declaration of AL-6 Application amounted to manufacture of special purpose solvent and that the same was classifiable as chemicals. He submitted that the department had admitted about the manufacture of special purpose solvent but they had not accepted the same to be classified as chemicals on the ground that as per definition the chemical must have a single molecular formula, molecular weight, and fixed boiling point or melting point. He submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich larger period is invokable and that they are not entitled to the benefit of the Notification in question. Our finding is supported by detailed considered order passed by the Collector on the basis of admissions made by the party and on the basis of statements of the customer s affidavits relied by the party itself and also the chemical examiner s report. In view of these enormous evidence the order cannot be faulted. There is no illegality or infirmity in the order. The Learned DR has rightly relied on several ratios. The judgment states that the same process of fraction distillation does not result into manufacture of new product. 9. In the case of Madras Petro-Chem Ltd. it has been held that a mixture of hydro-carbons with varying chemical structure cannot be considered as a separate chemically defined organic compound or as a single chemical substance with known chemical structure and therefore, the classification sought under Chapter 29 was rejected and the product was held to be classifiable under sub-heading 2710.99 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In this case also admittedly there has been no manufacture resulting in a product with a known chemical formula. The ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
