9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (3) TMI 378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or were covered by Serial No. 5 of the table annexed to Notification No. 52/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986. 2. The respondents have prayed for decision on merits. 3. On behalf of the appellants/Revenue, Shri Satnam Singh, SDR, is present. 4. We have carefully considered the matter. The respondents, among others, were engaged in the manufacture of glass jars. In the manufacture of such glass jars molten glass was manually brought to the first mould after a jar shape had been given to the molten glass by mouth blowing process. After the first mould, the semi-finished jar was taken to the second mould where the compressed air was blown into the semi-finished jar. The compressed air was coming through the pipe line and the compressed air was i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had mentioned that it is neither stated by the Assistant Collector nor by the appellant whether they have tank furnace or not. Further it is seen that the process adopted by the respondents was not fully manual. The compressed air was injected into the semi-finished jar and this compressed air was going through a pipe line and had to be generated mechanically. The compressed air could not be obtained manually. 6. We, therefore, consider that the goods as described and as manufactured through the process of manufacture as summarised by the adjudicating authority as well as referred to by the appellate authority were not covered by Serial No. 5 of the table under Notification No. 52/86-C.E. 7. The adjudicating authority had held that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contention was negatived by the Hon ble Supreme Court on appeal by the assessee when it was held that glassware manufactured by the assessee was produced by semi-automatic process. 9. As the respondents were using compressed air for operating the press, we consider that the process adopted by the respondents was a semiautomatic process which was covered by Serial No. 1 of the Table under Notification No. 67/88-C.E. 10. Taking all the relevant facts and considerations into account, we do not agree with the view taken by the learned Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) and set aside the same, and restore the Order-in-Original, dated 31-3-1989 passed by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Chandrapur, Maharashtra. 11. In view of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
