TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 773X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nting industry. 2. Shri K.K. Goel, learned SDR mentioned that M/s. P & P Containers Pvt. Ltd. manufacture 'printed cartons'; that in their classification list No. 8/85 effective from 18-3-1985, the Respondents claimed exemption under Notification No. 234/82 in respect of "printed wrappers"; that a show cause notice dated 19-9-1985 was issued to them for denying the said exemption on the ground that the impugned product was product of packaging industry and for demanding duty for the past period; that the Commissioner, Central Excise, under the impugned Order held that the impugned product was not products of "printing industry" as contemplated at Serial No. 24 of Notification No. 234/82-C.E. but dropped the demand holding that the sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amend or delete or withdraw it, we see no justification to refuse permission to the respondents to delete the offending words from the show cause notice and to proceed with the show cause notice without those words…… The argument that the Central Excise Officer has become functus officio because the show cause notice contain the grounds stated in the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Act also does not hold water because within a period of six months from the relevant date no levy or no payment or short-levy or short payment or erroneous refund of duty of excise, show cause notice can be issued and amended by him, and he continues to possess jurisdiction until he decides the show cause notice." 3. The learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Steel (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E., 1984 (17) E.L.T. 331 (T) wherein the Larger Bench of the Tribunal held that for issue of a show cause notice either for short levy or non levy, the recourse can be had to the provisions as prevailing at the time of initiation of proceedings and the period of limitation would be one as permissible under the existing provisions at the time of issue of notice. 4. On the other hand, Sh. A.R. Madhav Rao, learned Advocate, submitted that as held by the Apex Court in Metagraph Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Bombay, 1996 (88) E.L.T. 630 (S.C.), printed wrappers are "product of printing industry" since printing is not incidental to its use but primary as it communicates to the customer about the product and this serves a defini ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has categorically given his findings that impugned goods are not "products of printing industry" and the benefit of Notification No. 234/82-C.E. was not available. As neither any appeal has been filed by the Respondents nor any Cross-objection has been filed, this finding has attained finality and the said issue cannot be raised before us. We observe that, in the notice, the Respondents were required to show cause as to why duty should not be recovered from them (a) for the past five years and (b) in future. The Superintendent issued three addenda to the notice quantifying the amount of duty and the period as under : S. No. Date of Addendum Period Amount of duty 1. 25-2-1986 (a) 1-2-1985 To 16-3-1985 (b) 17-3-1985 To 30- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cifying the amount of duty in the show cause notice is not fatal as has been held by the Larger Bench of the Appellate Tribunal in the case of Bihari Silk & Rayon Processing Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Baroda, 2000 (121) E.L.T. 617 (T-LB) = 2000 (38) RLT 557 (CEGAT). We, therefore, hold that the demand of duty is to be confirmed against the respondents for the past six months from the date of the show cause notice. The Adjudicating Authority is directed to communicate the amount of duty for the past six months to the Respondents who will be liable to pay the same. As the issue involved in the matter was one of classification of the product and in view of the finding of the Collector that the classification lists were approved allowing exempt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|