9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (10) TMI 166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wise (3) the case law cited by the appellants had not been followed (4) on limitation, the submissions of the appellants with regard to the charge of wilful suppression had not been considered and (5) the provisions of Notification No. 201/79-C.E. had been mis-read. 2. The ROM application was heard on 17-9-1996 when Shri K. Prakash, Anand, Advocate with Shri R.L. Lamba, Advocate argued that the interpretation placed by the Tribunal on the issue of limitation was wrong. The ld. Advocate submitted that the various judgements referred to by the appellants had not been discussed. It was further stated that there was no suppression on the part of the applicants and that the franchise holder factories were their own factories. Appeal No. 5592/91 had not been discussed. 3. In reply Shri A.K. Madan, SDR submitted that what the applicants want through ROM application is the review of the order, which is not permissible under law. It was his submission that there was no case for ROM. There is no mistake in the Tribunal s order and all the relevant points have been discussed and orders recorded. He further stated that Appeal No. 5592/91 had been discussed in para-15 read with para-14 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had already been utilised by them while paying duty on such cigarettes when originally cleared), was liable to be dis-allowed under Para 3 of the Notification No. 201/79-C.E. as per provision below explanation under Rule 56A of the Rules (as inserted vide Notification No. 104/79-C.E., dated 3-3-1979). It was observed that the cut-tobacco and the waste-tobacco had been cleared on consideration to the outside factories, which were independent manufacturers in their own right, although they were producing cigarettes of the brand of `GTC . They had their own licence and manufacturing facilities and were being assessed to central excise duty on the cigarettes manufactured and cleared by them. The waste tobacco had not been destroyed, and had been removed on consideration and as such the matter was not covered by para-7 of the Appendix annexed to that notification. 7. On the question of limitation, it was observed that the Notification No. 201/79-C.E. was a self-contained provision. It has its own provision for adjustment, cash recovery, refund, limitation etc. While for accountal of the credit and its utilisation, the formalities as between the provisions of Notification No. 201/79 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conclusions reached refer Supreme Court s decisions in (1) Homi Jehangir Gheesta v. Commissioner of Income Tax - 1961 (41) ITR 135 (SC) (2) Dhirajlal Girdhari v. Commissioner of Income Tax - 1954 (26) ITR 736 (SC) and (3) Omar Salay Mohmd. Sait v. Commissioner of Income Tax - 1959 (37) ITR 151 (SC). 10. It is not correct to say that the order recorded by the Tribunal did not take into account most of the submissions made by the applicants. It is no ground to assail the order that the submissions made by applicant at the time of oral hearing took two hours of presentation . In the case of Vasudeo Vishwanath Saraf v. New Education Institute - AIR 1986 (SC) 2105 the Hon ble Supreme Court had stated that it is not necessary that an order must be a lengthy one recording in detail all the reasons that played in the mind of the Court in coming to the decision. What is required is that the order must in a nutshell record the relevant reasons which were taken into consideration in coming to the decision. 11. In para-6 of the ROM application, it had been stated another glaring mistake apparent on the face of the record is the mis-reading of the provisions of Notification No. 201/79" ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 68 on the printed cartons, which were used as packing of the synthetic detergents `Surf for set-off under Notification No. 201/79-C.E., dated 4-6-1979. The Department wanted to interpret the Notification to mean that the Item-68 goods should enter into the composition and form part or ingredients of the finished products. In other words, they should be used as raw materials or components. The Tribunal noted that the requirement that T.I. 68 goods should be used as raw materials or component parts was written into the Notification only on 28-2-1982 by the amending Notification No. 105/82-C.E. Prior to the amendment, this was not a requirement. Prior to 28-2-1982, the only requirement was that Item No. 68 goods need have been used only in the manufacture of the finished excisable goods. It was with these considerations that the Tribunal held that till the Notification No. 201/79-C.E. was amended by the Notification No. 105/82-C.E., dated 28-2-1982, the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 201/79-C.E. in respect of printed cartons on which duty under T.I. 68 had been paid. In the case of Premier Tyres Ltd. v. CCE - 1986 (26) E.L.T. 42 (Tribunal) the inputs we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cate to the detenue that a representation could be made against the order directing detention of the petitioner to the detaining authority. In the case of Jenson Nicholson (I) Ltd. v. CCE - 1988 (32) E.L.T. 174 (Tribunal) the raw materials were Pthalic Anhydride and Pentacrythritol, the intermediate products were Alkyd Resin, which were fully exempted from duty and the final products were paints and varnishes. The issue for consideration in those proceedings was whether the credit of duty in respect of raw materials could be denied on the ground that it was not directly used in the manufacture of the final goods but in the manufacture of intermediate goods, which might be exempted from duty. The Tribunal concurred with the view taken in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd., Madras - 1987 (32) E.L.T. 579 (Tribunal). It was held in that decision that the benefit of Notification would be available even if the manufacture of the final product is in a factory different from the factory in which the raw materials are consumed so long as both belong to the same manufacturer. It had also been held in that decision that so long as the consumption of the ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
