9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (9) TMI 405X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that condition No. 2 of the notification, has not been fulfilled. 2. The learned Advocate for the appellants has reiterated the pleas which he made at the time of personal hearing before the authority below which are reproduced below for convenience of reference : Dr. Jois, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been manufacturing and clearing soap in different forms such as bars, noodles, cakes, etc. The classification list filed by the petitioner has been accepted and approved by the Department as soap in any form under Tariff Heading 3401.10 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, the petitioner, therefore, become eligible to the benefit of Notification No. 46/89 dated 11-10-1989 issued under Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , for levy of duty as soap under Tariff Heading 3401 which reads as soap in any form. He has pleaded it is not the case of the Revenue that what has been manufactured by the appellants was not soap. He has pleaded the Tribunal in the case of Ojas Corporation v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1988 (35) E.L.T. 189 where the question was whether the power was used in or in relation to the manufacture of the soap as the soap emerged in bar form which was later on cut to sizes by use of power would not disentitled the assessee from the benefit of notification in respect of soap which was available in respect of soap manufactured without the aid of power. The inference he pleads drawn is that soap which is manufactured in the form of bar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ufacture bars and noodles of soap which they cleared from the factory after payment of duty under Tariff Heading 3401. It is therefore to be taken that the authorities were satisfied with what had been manufactured by the appellants and cleared from the factory was only soap. If that to be so the authorities cannot turn around and say that all processes required for manufacture of soap had not been carried out when they themselves have allowed clearance of the product from the factory as soap for the purpose of levy of Excise duty. In that view of the matter we find force in the plea of the appellants. The case law cited by the appellants also supports the appellants plea that what had emerged as bars and noodles was only soap. The benefit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
