9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (9) TMI 299X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... FRP sheet sample was 36000 kgf/cm2 and therefore, the sample was that of `rigid plastic. The ld. adjudicating authority, therefore, not only confirmed the demand amounting to Rs. 2,37,476.36 but also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 20,000/- under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of fibreglass reinforced plastic sheet. The department alleged that the product manufactured by the appellants was classifiable under T. I. 15A(2) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the appellants asking them to explain as to why duty amounting to Rs. 2,37,476.36 should not be demanded from them in respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertificate we decided to waive the condition of pre-deposit of duty and penalty and took up the appeal for final hearing only on the short point as to whether the test certificate is clear enough to provide a positive opinion as regard the classification of the item. We feel that the test result and remarks are more or less contradictory to each other and therefore, there ought to be some clarification on this point before the issue can be finally decided. Under the circumstances, we set aside the order of the Additional Collector and remand the matter back to the Additional Collector and direct that the department may seek appropriate clarification from the authorities issuing the test certificate and re-adjudicate the issue on the basis o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he sheets will be rigid plastic. The ld. Constt. submitted that this Explanation under this Notification has been struck down as ultra vires by the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mechanical Packaging Industries Pvt. Ltd v. UOI reported in 1987 (32) E.L.T. 35 and therefore, this cannot be applied for determining the rigid plastic character of the product manufactured by the appellants. He, therefore, submitted that the product manufactured by them was not rigid plastic. 6. In reply, the Department argued that the only point which was referred back for de novo adjudication by the West Regional Bench was the clarification on the certificate given by the National Test House. He submitted that National Test House in most ambiguous t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plastic sheet. In this view of the matter, we hold that the benefit of Notification No. 149/82-C.E., dated 22-4-1982 was not admissible to the appellants. 8. The ld. Constt. also agitated the question of classification of the product. He submitted that the product was not classifiable under Tariff Item 15A(2) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff but was classifiable under Tariff Item 68. In support of his contention, he cited and relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Jeep Flash Light Industries Ltd. reported in 1985 (22) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). He submitted that it is well settled in law by now that new grounds can be raised at appeal stage even if no cross-objection is filed by the other party and that the Appellate Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
