9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (4) TMI 205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rma, J.D.R., for the Respondent. [Order per : Shiben K. Dhar, Member (T)]. - This Appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No. 6/87, dated 31-12-1986 of Collector of Central Excise, Cochin. 2. Duty of Rs. 2,02,860/- has been confirmed as payable by the Appellants on the ground that they do not fulfil the condition clause 2 of the Notification No. 83/83, dated 1-3-1983 since the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ning of Section 2(f) of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Tribunal in this case has also relied upon the decision rendered by the Kerala High Court on 9-11-1987 on a batch of matters filed by M/s. Padinjarekara Rubber Industries & Others (Original Petition No. 9180/82 and others) where the High Court held masticated rubber was nothing but natural rubber and that by the process of mastication ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 985 and the show cause notice was issued on 28-10-1985. They have filed necessary declaration in this regard. Collector in the impugned order however has said that declaration was not received in his office though the Ld. Counsel submits that the fact that copy of the declaration was included in the seized documents itself would prove that the declaration had been sent Ld. D.R. on behalf of the Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly to the facts of the case. In this case the Tribunal held that masticated rubber made out from natural rubber, merely by process of mastication does not involve manufacture. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Padinjarakara Rubber Industries & Others (Original petition No. 918 /92 & others) where by subsequently Kerala High Court in the case of Superi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
