9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (1) TMI 247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 329/77 dated 26-11-1977 as applicable to glass produced by mouth-blown process and glassware produced by manually operated press. In 1980 they installed semi-automatic press but continued to avail exemption applicable to glass and glass- ware. Consequent to initiation of proceedings through a Show Cause Notice they were finally adjudged by Collector to be liable to pay duty @ 35%, the tariff rate, and in pursuance thereof demand of Rs. 906178.14 was confirmed and a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh was also imposed upon them. 2. Arguing for the appellants, Ld. Counsel submits that in the manually operated processes which were employed in 1980, the plunger was being moved down manually. At least two workers were required to hang on to the lever and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 59/85 on the ground that they had employed semi-automatic process. This plea was taken before Collector but the Collector appears to have rejected it on a extraneous ground that the machine was sophisticated. 4. Ld. DR submits that once a mechanical press had been installed the operation no longer remained manual and, therefore, lower rate was correctly denied to them. It could not be also considered that the glassware was being manufactured through semi-automatic process because the Collector has described in para 8 of his order that this machine was a sophisticated glass- making machine. 5. We have heard both sides. To the extent that mechanical press was used in producing glass and glassware the appellants clearly became ineligible ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were fully satisfied by them during the period covered by the impugned order. In view of this we observe that Collector ought to have examined this plea with reference to the claim of assessment under Sl. No. 1 of the Notification. The machine being sophisticated by itself could not become a ground to deny assessment under this Sl. No. 7. In regard to claim of time bar, Ld. counsel cited before us the cases reported in 1995 (75) E.L.T. 721; 1981 (40) E.L.T. 276; and 1994 (73) E.L.T. 257. We find that facts of the present case are distinguishable. There could be no case of bona fide belief when they shifted from manual operation to what might be called a system where part of the manufacturing operations were carried out manually and part m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
