9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (10) TMI 480X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... those impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics . Appellants were clearing goods as per this approved classification list. 2. The Commissioner has filed a review application under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 vide his review order No. 46/89 directing that an appeal was required to be filed before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras within three months of this order as he found that the decision dated 15-3-1989 of AC classifying the subject goods for benefit of the Notification No. 52/86 was not correct on the following reasons :- 3. The concessional rate of 20% is prescribed under Notification No. 52/86, dated 10-2-1986 applicable only to those goods other than goods impregnat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tor of Central Excise and therefore constitutes separate proceedings initiated by the Collector of Central Excise, on the basis of powers vested in him under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise and Salt Act. 8. The main issue involved in this case is whether the Fibre Glass Reinforced Sheet Moulding Compound and Dough Moulding Compounds are eligible to the exemption contained in Notification No. 52/86. The said exemption is available to glass fabrics other than fabrics impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics or varnish, I have considered the entire process of manufacture of the said products as narrated in the write-up furnished by the respondents. At the outset, I must observe that the write up furnished by the responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or laminated with plastics. The products manufactured by the respondents viz. Fibre Glass Reinforced Sheet Moulding Compound and Dough Moulding Compounds are not eligible for the said exemption as the glass fibres are coated and covered by plastics as is evident from the process of manufacture. 4. Appellants have filed the present appeal on the grounds - (a) the Commissioner has failed to appreciate the fact that conclusions arrived at by him are contrary to the facts of the product being manufactured in their case, (b) the Commissioner should have appreciated that no fresh and new reasons were done by the department and when there was no change in the process of manufacture since approval of classification list, there was n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) does not give any reasons as to why the goods being manufactured by the present appellants are considered to be impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics . This review does not rely upon the R D Manager s technical report obtained by Commissioner (Appeals). It is therefore to be held that Commissioner (Appeals) has traversed beyond the grounds taken in the review order by Commissioner under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 which he could not have done without putting the appellants to a proper notice. The order, therefore, cannot be sustained since there are no reasons given in the Commissioner s original order of review of the classification list. We are in agreement with the grounds taken in appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
