1996 (12) TMI 190

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 3. It was his submission that the appellants were manufacturing coir products like mattresses including rubberised coir mattresses, etc. which were wholly exempt from payment of duty under Notification 115/75. 4. In the course of manufacture of their final product, they were preparing and using a solution for the purpose. This solution, according to them, was not rubber compound nor it was saleable as such and was not excisable and, therefore, they had not paid any duty. 5. However, a term of officers visited their factory on 30-11-1989 and they were shown the process of manufacture of the so called compound rubber and also informed them about all the ingredients which were being used. 6. Inspite of noticing and observing all these .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sion that the Department has raised the demand on the basis of hypothetical figures and there had not been a proper assessment. 13. No sample was drawn of the product in question and it was not tested and, therefore, their contention that it was a rubber compound has not been established and their submission that it was not a rubber compound and not a saleable product is also required to be taken into account. 14. Merely referring to the test report of a sample drawn from another factory was not sufficient for this purpose. It was also their contention that in any eventuality, even rubber compounds manufactured in a factory covered by coir industry was exempt from payment of duty in terms of Notification 115/75. 15. That apart, their .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... elayed and the Department had to make enquiries from others to arrive at the exact figures using the best judgment assessment. 19. It was also his contention that the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 as amended was not available to the appellants. 20. It was also his contention that although they had claimed the benefit of 115/75 it covers the products of coir industry, where as in the present case, the rubber compound was an intermediate product which was found excisable by the Department and classifiable under Heading 40.05. He would also like to mention that it is incorrect to say that the adjudicating officer has merely relied upon the results of the tests of products of another factory because he has also referred and relied upon .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X