9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (4) TMI 282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e glass reinforced plastic (F.R.P.) corrugated and semi-corrugated roofing sheets. By a letter dated 9-7-1975, they had claimed exemption from duty in terms of Central Excise Notification No. 68/71, dated 29-5-1971 on the aforesaid goods which till then were charged to duty as rigid plastic sheets under Item No. 15A(2) of the Central Excise Tariff (CET). The Asstt. Collector by his letter dated 15-10-1975, acceded to the appellants' request on the ground that F.R.P. roofing sheets had got profile shapes and could not be re-shaped and were directly moulded from resins. However, on 30-1-1976, the Supdt. of Central Excise informed the appellants that the question of exemption of F.R.P. roofing sheets was under review by the Government of India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd same shall be deemed to have been confirmed by issue of this order." He also confirmed under Rule 10A the aforesaid demand for ₹ 39,470.20 for the period from 6-9-1975 to 31-8-1976. He also held the alleged contraventions of Central Excise Rules as having been established and imposed a penalty of ₹ 25 on the appellants under Rule 173-Q. 3. The matter was pursued in appeal by the appellants. In his order of 20-2-1979, the Appellate Collector observed that "in matters of classification, if a similar issue is under the consideration by the Government, it is not necessary that each individual case should be brought to the notice of the Government for review. It would only be unnecessary work both on the part of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its rationale. They did not know the basis, the arguments and the submissions. In any event, such a decision would not be binding on the appellants. (vi) Bombay Collectorate Trade Notice dated 26-9-1981 clarified that glass fibre reinforced plastic articles manufactured from resins and/or plastic materials falling under Item 15A(1) are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 68/71. 5. The learned SDR, in her submissions, agreed that there was a factual error in the Appellate Collector's order where it says that the appellants did not file a revised classification list after the Assistant Collector's order. She further agreed that, in the circumstances of the case, there was no question of resorting to provisional assessment. 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing which the alleged contraventions of Central Excise Rules took place and duty was not paid. However, the Assistant Collector's adjudication order of 1-9-1977 proceeds as if the Assistant Collector's order of approval of the classification list was under review because a similar decision in respect of another assessee was under review by the Government. Evidently, each decision has to be separately reviewed and review proceedings in one assessee's case cannot be the basis on which the decision in another assessee's case can be modified. Quite apart from this, the Government's Order-in-Review does not appear to have been made available to the appellants nor, for that matter, to us. How were the appellants to know the basis for the Governme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
