9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (1) TMI 381X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal Superintendent of Central Excise enquiring whether such process of powdering would amount to manufacture in terms of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and whether the resultant fine powder would be excisable. The Superintendent, in his letter dated 14th April, 1980, replied that mere conversion of the dry ink dopes into powder would not qualify as "manufacture" and that it would not be excisable. Thereafter, from June, 1980 onwards, the appellants started powdering of dry coarse ink dopes purchased from outside and subjecting the same through Micro pulveriser machine. The resultant product (hereinafter referred to as the product), sold to M/s. Kores (India) Limited, is used in photo-copying machines. In August, 1981 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Excise requesting clarification whether the process of powdering of ink amounts to manufacture. (P-1) 14-4-1980 Superintendent replies to appellant saying that the product would not be excisable. (P-2) 10-8-1981 Superintendent writes to appellant saying that AC has decided that the powdered ink is dutiable under T.I. 68. (P-3) 10-8-1981 Superintendent issues test memo. (P-4) 30-9-1981 Appellant writes to Superintendent saying that there is no process of manufacture. (P-7) 22-2-1982 Superintendent writes to appellant approving classification list under Tariff Item 68. (P-11) 12-3-1982 Appellant writes to Superintendent saying that in terms of Notification No. 46 of 1981 read with No. 92 of 1981 the grinding of ink is not done ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents to make regarding limitation and the retrospective demand. He, however, pointed out that the arguments regarding limitation were not raised before the Collector and submitted that these arguments should not be allowed before the Tribunal at this stage. This was countered by the learned Advocate for the appellants by citing 1986 (24) E.L.T. 593 (Tribunal) -(Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta). 6. We have considered the arguments of both sides. The only question before us is whether or not the demand against the appellants is within the period of limitation. The question of merits was not argued by the learned Counsel for the appellants and therefore, we did not ask the Revenue to advance argume ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l mis-statement or suppression of fact or contravention of any provision of the Act or of the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payament of duty. The show cause notice does not contain allegation of such fraud, wilful mis-statement, etc. Therefore, it is not a case in which the period of limitation could be enlarged beyond the normal period of six months as provided under Section 11A. 8. We have noted the arguments of the learned JDR that the question of limitation was not taken up before the Collector. In Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta (supra-para 5), the Tribunal did not accept the contention that the question of bar of limitation, having never been raised at any earlier stage, cannot n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
