9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (9) TMI 149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ying Central Excise Duty only @ 10% ad valorem though the impugned by Plywood, according to the Department, did not contain any ISI marking as a token of proof of its conforming to ISI specification for eligibility of such concessional rate under Notification No. 124/85, dated 16-5-1985. As a sequel thereof, adjudication proceedings were initiated under a show cause notice dated 19-8-1985 and the Assistant Collector, Central Excise Customs, Dibrugarh, confirmed the said demand by his Order-in-Original dated 28-10-1985. Against that order of the Assistant Collector, the appellants filed their appeal before the Collector (Appeals), but without success. Hence the present appeal by the appellants. 3. When the case called, none appeared on b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the Self Removal Procedure of Chapter-VIIA of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Under Rule 173B of the said rules, the appellants are required to submit a fresh Form I (that is to say Classification List) at their own initiative in case of any change in tariff description, terms and conditions of conessional exemption, rate of duty etc. and could remove excisable goods from the factory only after obtaining the approval on it (if otherwise such approval not dispensed with) and that too after paying Central Excise Duty determined as per the said approved Form-I. But in the instant case, despite enactment/issuance of the conditional concessional notification bearing No. 124/85, dated 16-5-1985, the appellant did not submit any such Classifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ISI specification was produced and cleared. He drew our attention to the contention of the appellants in the present appeal that there was no obligation on the part of the appellants to emboss the goods with any markings notwithstanding the issue of the said Notification No. 124/85 as the said Notification does not explicitly state so, should not be accepted, as acceptance of such contention, according to him, would amount to saying that no differentiation need be made between ISI specification Marine Plywood and non ISI marine plywood even after Notification No. 124/85 has been issued. 5. We have considered the submissions. The main issue involved in the present case is, as to whether the appellants were entitled for the benefit of con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... port dated 16-6-1985 (Annexure 9 - page 27) indicates that the testing was done as per ISI 734/72 Part VII. From the test reports on the record, it is not possible for us to correlate as to whether these test reports relate to the first quality Marine plywood removed during the relevant period or to the Marine Plywood with defects. Under these circumstances, we feel it expedient in the interest of justice that the case should go back to the original authority having jurisdiction in the matter for de novo adjudication in accordance with law and after observing the principles of natural justice. 6. In the result, we set aside both the impugned orders and remand the case to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise having jurisdiction in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
