9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (1) TMI 271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocally known as BENTOL which is a mixture of Benzene and Toluene is obtained. 3. The A.C. permitted use of BENTOL in the plant for cleaning purposes on payment of duty @ 5% ad valorem during 1969 to 1971 and @ Rs. 34/- per kl. thereafter on the condition that the procedure set forth in Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules is followed and also granted a L-6 licence on 28-12-1968. 4. The Central Excise authorities at Bareilly had also considered at that time that the execution of a fresh B-8 bond was not necessary as the appellants had already executed one in respect of Benzene falling under the same tariff item. Hence none was executed separately for BENTOL . Subsequently, however the Superintendent Central Excise, Bareilly issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the relevant date in terms of these provisions as they stood during the relevant period and only an amount of Rs. 5/- would be found to be within the prescribed time limit. However, it was their contention that this is admittedly a case of captive consumption and Chapter X procedure did not apply, therefore they were not required to execute any fresh bond and hence actually no amount was payable. 8. Ld. DR drew attention to the impugned orders and reiterated the department s view as contained therein. 9. We have considered the above submissions. We observe that the Ld. Counsel s contentions have strong force. The show cause notice itself indicates that the appellants were permitted by the A.C. Central Excise, Bareilly vide his letter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... says where for this purpose, it is necessary for the applicant to obtain a excise licence; in such cases where an item is produced and utilised within the same factory there is no need for such a licence and in any eventuality of a bond. 15. In any eventuality in the present case the appellants had applied for and were granted the permission and the product was used captively for specified purposes therefore the appellants were entitled to the benefit of notification extended to them. And even if for arguments sake it is said that a bond was necessary it has already been held by the tribunal in a catena of orders that a substantive benefit, if otherwise due, could not be denied merely on account of minor procedural infractions. 16. Furt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
