9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (12) TMI 438X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 39.20 as obtained from Bhor Industries. In such PPVC, a plastic inlet tube and a catheter outlet tube of Plastic material, with a valve arrangement was thereafter placed. Such PPVC pouch with tubes were sealed to make them an air-tight leak proof set. Thereafter on sterilisation, Urocom Set, Urocom CVC or Urocom L.B. sets came into existence which was marketed as a life saving equipment for draining out urine and other waste from a Human patient as Ostomy Products. The unfinished, intermediate pouch i.e. PPVC, were exclusively consumed captively in the manufacture of an urine drainage set. (b) The Superintendent of Central Excise, vide letter dated 21-9-1992, on his own, holding that PPVC is an article of plastic for conveyance or packing of goods falling under H. No. 39.23, called upon the Appellant to provide some information with a view to issue Show Cause-cum Demand Notices. (c) The Appellants vide their letter dated 1-10-92, replied that PPVC was captively consumed as a component of Urocom sets , it was not used for conveyance or packing of any goods as required under H. No. 39.23, since Urine was not goods under Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and/or C.E.T.A. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 1 2 in para 1(c) above dated 6-10-92 and 10-12-92 confirmed the Assistant Collector s finding with regard to the classification and liability of duty on the PPVC and ordered determination of the value and demands to be worked out accordingly in accordance with the principles of natural justice. (f) In appeal, the Tribunal at New Delhi, vide its final order dated 24-3-1999 dismissed the appeal for non prosecution. An application filed for restoration, of this export order is pending. However the Assistant Commissioner took up, all the 13 notices mentioned in para 1(c), herein above, including the ones in the matter remanded, and vide order dated 7-3-2003 confirmed the demands by holding - It is observed that after filing an appeal with CEGAT party neither gave any importance to the above referred cases and nor even made any effort to find the status of the cases, whereas in some other cases they complied the orders passed by Hon ble Tribunal i.e. stay order No. CE/2744/WZB/99 dated 5-11-99 during the same period. Party filed an Restoration of appeal only after the hearing dates were granted by this office. From the above facts it is evident that party unnecessarily tryin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 85-CX-1, dated 26-12-1985 (iv) Telex No. 10/5/1986-TRU., dated 11-4-1986 And Tribunal decision in the case of CCE v. K.L.J. Plastics Ltd. - 2004 (166) E.L.T. 485 (T) = 2004 (114) ECR 982 (T). 3. Revenue on the other side contends - (a) The demands were challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals) claiming the benefit of Notification 14/92. This was denied vide order dated 3-5-94, on the ground that the said Sl. No. claimed was applicable only to such goods which were manufactured from raw-material falling under 39.01 to 39.15.. Whereas PPVC herein are not manufactured out of such material. Therefore Benefit under Sl. No. 38 of the Notification No. 14/92 was disallowed and subsequent protective demands were issued. (b) The remand is for quantification of duty as per CAs certificate. Appeal against this order of CC (Appeals) dated 3-5-94 was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 24-3-99 and the order has attained finality. Upon remand the adjudicating authority has decided all the notices covered from April 92 to May 93 as well as protective demands for the period June 93 to December 95. All these 13 notices have been now adjudged as per Tribunal s order dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o demands could be made and are required to be confirmed as PPVC is accepted to be exempt fully from duty. The notices at Sl. No. 6 to 13 in the list in para 1 (c) herein above and duty demands therein are ordered to be discharged after setting aside the notices. (b) As regards notices of demand at Sl. No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 in para 1(c) above, the perusal of the notices shows, that these notices cover a period from April 1992 to November 1993. Duty is demanded, denying the benefit of Notification No. 53/88, which was not in existence during the periods. Notification No. 14/92 dated 1-3-1992 covers the period in the notices at Sl. No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 in para 1(c). The notices issued without application of mind are not good to fasten demands of duty. (c) The plea made of appellants of the benefit of Board Circular No. 13/22/82-CX-1 dated 5-6-84, 13/87/85-CEX-1 dated 26-12-85 and Telex F. No. 10/5/86-TRU dated 11-4-1986 to set aside the demands at S. No. 1 to 6 of para 1 herein above consider the grant of notification benefit 14/92 dated 1-3-92 covering this period of demands by interpreting the manufacture of PPVC, a plastic product, from duty paid sheets obtained from M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... primary form of plastic falling under 39.01 to 39.15 emerge are thereafter classified under 39.20 or elsewhere, such manufacture gets the benefit of being considered to be made from duty paid goods/material of 39.01 to 39.15, not only in continuous manufacture process but even in interrupted factories exemption would be available. Tribunal vide its Order in the case of CCE v. K.L.J Plastics Ltd. - 2004 (166) E.L.T. 485 (T) = 2004 (114) ECR 982 (T) has also upheld this view. It is also found that Revenue has withdrawn appeals filed in Supreme Court to press contra view considering to the above. No material has been brought out on record as to why Board instructions are not applicable in this case. Therefore, PPVC emerging in the present appellant factory from duty paid sheet under heading 39.20 has to be considered has emergence of an article of plastic from primary form of plastic falling under heading 39.01 to 39.15 when there is no material that this plastic sheets obtained from M/s Bhor Industries were not made from primary form of plastic falling under 39.01 to 39.15. Nothing contra has been shown to us. No reason are therefore found to deny the benefit of Notification 14/9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
