9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (8) TMI 278X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on the appellants and duty of ₹ 5,557.72 demanded from them under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on the ground that during the period from 30-5-1971 to 21-9-1971 they manufactured and removal glass mica tapes and fibre glass varnished tapes without obtaining a Central Excise Licence and without paying the duty as applicable to electric insulation tapes under Item 59 of the Cen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impregnated or coated with insulating compound used for covering joints in or open ends of electric wires and cables. Such tapes may have for backing, textiles, cellulosic film or paper. This appellant s version is that their tapes did not conform to the above definition contained in the trade notice and in the absence of any further reply to their specific letter to the Department, they presu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts is that the term electric insulating tape as understood commonly, popularly and in commercial parlance is the tape which is impregnated with insulating material and one side of which is coated with adhesive material and it is commonly used for covering joints in and open ends of electric wires and cables. They state that the same meaning was given to this item in the Collector trade notice re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trade notice meant that no duty was chargeable on their products, their clearances did not amount to clandestine removals coming under the provisions of Rule 9(2), that in view of the Supreme Court s judgment in Elphiniston Mills case, only Rule 10 could apply in their case and since the demand for duty was issued to them on 12-3-1974 for the period from 30-5-1971 to 21-9-1971, it was time-barred. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he trade notice. But we find that the trade notice hardly clarified the point so far as the specific product manufactured by the appellants was concerned in view of the claimed different use and purpose of the appellants product. The Assistant Collector admitted it in his order that the appellants had no mala fide intention. In the circumstances, imposition of penalty on the appellants is not jus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
