9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 747X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants. 2. Brief facts of the case are :- M/s. Adlabs Films Pvt Ltd., Suren Road situated at 35/38, Suren Road, Mumbai - 400 093 are engaged in the processing and manufacturing of cinematographic films, classifiable under Ch. Head 37.06 of Central Excise Tariff. These films are chargeable at nil rate of Central Excise duty under the tariff. On the basis of intelligence that M/s. Adlabs are not paying Central Excise duty on the products namely- (i) chemical preparations manufactured and used captively for processing of cinematographic films and (ii) on silver residue, obtained through the process of electrolysis, their premises were searched on 16-7-98 and various documents were seized. It was found that the processing of motion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalties. The appellants are in appeal against this adjudication orders. 5. Since all the adjudication orders are in respect of the same appellant and in respect of the same issue, they are being disposed off by a common order. 6. Ld. Counsel Shri Jaykar and Shri R.B. Pardeshi, appeared on behalf of the appellants. It is the submission of the ld. Counsel that the adjudicating authority has not considered the fact that the chemical preparations manufactured by mixing of various chemicals are only for specific use of the appellants. These solutions cannot be used by anyone else and that these solutions have very limited shelf life. It is the submission that the said issue stands settled by the various decisions of the Tribunal in the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Commissioner (Adjn) in their own case is not correct. The Counsel tried to bring out the difference between the chemical solutions prepared by them and used in the processing of Cinematographic Films as to chemical used in the processing of still photography. It is the submission that the adjudicating authority has not considered this vital evidence and has not given any findings/consideration to the case laws cited by them before the adjudicating authority. 7. Ld. Jt. CDR and SDR would submit that the evidence as regards the marketability of this product is already on record. It is the submission that the evidence of purchase of identical chemicals was given by the Revenue to the appellants. He submits that the said developer, fixer, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 2012, Northern Plastics Ltd. v. Hindustan Photo Films Mfg. Co. Ltd., 1997 (91) E.L.T. 502 (S.C.). 9. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. 10. The first and foremost question to be decided in this case is whether the issue regarding the marketability of the impugned products i.e. chemical preparation namely, colour developer, stop bath, bleach, fixer, stabilizer, etc. is settled or not. The Commissioner (Adjn) vide order-in-original No. 5/2000 dated 26-6-2000, after considering the representation made by the appellants and after considering the facts of marketability of identical products, came to the conclusion that the chemical solutions as manufactured by the current appellants were marketable. 11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld challenge this order by filing appeal, but appears to have not done so. The argument of the learned counsel that although duty demand had been dropped against the appellants, but findings regarding the availability of benefit of Notification No. 223/88 had been given against them by the Collector in the impugned order and as such the appeal filed by them is maintainable, cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the appeal lies not against the finding, but against the order. 13. It can be seen that other case laws, which has been cited by the ld. Counsel in support of the proposition that the appeals has to be filed against the order, by which they should be aggrieved seems to be on a very strong footing. All the case laws as ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal against the said order-in-original No. 5 of 2000 dated 26-6-2000 . 17. It can be noticed from the above reproduced findings that the adjudicating authority has merely followed the order-in-original No. 5/2000 dated 26-6-2000, wherein findings were given as regards the marketability. We have already held that such findings are not binding on the appellants as the order-in-original No. 5/2000 dated 26-6-2000 has dropped the proceedings initiated against the appellants. We also find that the Counsel for the appellants had taken us through various evidences to indicate that the invoices, which were produced by the Revenue were of chemicals, which are used for still photographic. They tried to point out that the chemical, which are used ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
