9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (5) TMI 243X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which is used by M/s. Ballarpur Industries Pvt. Ltd., in the manufacture of paper in their factory. The Asstt. Collector has been authorised to file this appeal by the Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur. The learned departmental representative for the appellants has contended that sodium sulphate for which the credit of duty has been claimed is used in converting black liquor into white liquor. It is thus used for regeneration of spent chemical and not used directly in the manufacture of paper. It has also been argued that sodium sulphate is used in the recovery section of the mills to obtain white liquor. The black liquor is converted into white liquor by addition of sodium sulphate and firing the mixture in the recovery boiler. Thus sodi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -emphasised that the use of the sodium sulphate is necessary in the respondents factory to produce better quality of paper. Coming to the Notification No. 201/79, dated 4-6-1979, he has drawn our attention to the wordings of the Notification and argued that it exempts all excisable goods on which the duty of excise is leviable and in the manufacture of which any goods falling under Item 68 have been used to the extent of duty already paid on the goods described in the Notification as inputs. The learned Advocate has further contended that this Notification has to be interpreted in the same way as the term `manufacture is defined under Section 2(f). He has emphasised that the definition of `manufacture in the Parent Act must prevail in in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Bombay High Court s Judgement in the case of Haldyn Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. v. M.L. Badhwar, 1980 E.L.T. page 291. For the aforesaid reasons, he has submitted that the appeal filed by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Chandrapur Dn. is not tenable and that the same should be dismissed. 3. We have examined the submissions of the appellant and the respondents. The main question before us is the correct construction of Notification 201/79, dated 4-6-1979. It is seen that the same is interpreted by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Dn. Chandrapur to mean the benefit thereunder could be given to only those excisable goods which are used as inputs in the manufacture of any excisable goods. We find this interpretation does not fol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
