9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (11) TMI 187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ayment of duty. 2. The appellants had raised the contention before the Collector for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and also on merits. The delay was marginal and very strong reason had been stated, inasmuch as that they had despatched the appeal papers by speed post on 27-2-1991 and also had produced the proof. They contended that the order is of the Assistant Collector was received on 9-12-1990 and hence the appeal having been posted well within the period of limitation of 3 months has reached the Collector s office within time. 3. It was also contended by them that in terms of contract for supply of cement pipes, the same was required to be tested by cutting pieces, ranging from one metre to five metres. After testing thes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry when they avail the exemption, these samples are not waste and therefore, the question of application of Rule 57D does not arise. 5. Arguing for the appellants, the learned Advocate Ms. Reena Khair submitted that the pipes cannot be cleared unless the samples are drawn from the said pieces for the purposes of testing. Even those cut-pieces which are tested are reprocessed. She submits that the goods drawn for testing are covered by Rule 57D of Central Excise Rules which clearly lays down that credit of duty is not to be denied or varied on the ground that part of inputs is contained in any waste, refuse or by-product arising during the manufacture of the final product where or nor such waste, refuse or by-product is exempted from the w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st acknowledgement receipt to show that the appeal papers had been posted by speed post to the Collector on 27-2-1991 most before the expiry of the period for filing the appeal from the date of the receipt of the adjudication order which has been accepted by the Collector as on 9-12-1990. The Collector has noted that the appeal has been received on 13-3-1991. Even as per this date, the delay is marginal by about 4 days. The Collector has got the powers to condone the delay for another 3 months in terms of Section 35 of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. He has observed that the appeal is barred by time but has proceeded to decide the case on merits. It follows that he has accepted their delay and therefore, I hold that the appeal filed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further held that unless the goods reach a stage, where they are fit for delivery, they cannot be considered as fully manufactured goods. The quality control test being a mandatory requirement before the goods produced could be considered as fully manufactured. Therefore, the Tribunal held that no Central Excise duty was payable on the cement concrete poles which got destroyed in the course of mandatory control tests which were the part of production course of the poles. 10. In the case of Union Carbide Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise (supra), it was held that dry cell batteries rejected during testing and inspection are required to be accepted as waste and scrap, as the dry cell, are treated as fully manufactured only after they pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
