9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (2) TMI 271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8(SR), dated 7-9-1977 in respect of the resins manufactured by them and the said classification list was approved w.e.f. 16-9-1977 by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Travancore, classifying the product under Item 15-A(1) C.E.T. and giving the benefit of 25% rebate of duty in terms of Notification No. 198/76, dated 16-6-1976 computing the base production as Nil for the purpose of said Notification. 2. Later on, the Excise authorities discovered that the respondents had been manufacturing and clearing for their own consumption Synthetic Resins falling under Item 15-A1) from 1974 onwards without obtaining a Central Excise Licence and without payment of excise duty and accordingly it was found to be-incorrect to compute the base p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Excise Rules which could be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the base period and base clearance. 5. Not satisfied with the said order of the Appellate Collector, the Government of India issued Review Show Cause Notice No. IV/16/38/80 Review (Part II) dated 28-6-1981 under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 asking the respondents as to why the order passed by the Appellate Collector be not reviewed. 6. The reasons given in the said Review Show Cause Notice are as under : The reasoning of the Appellate Collector does not appear to be correct. It is not correct to interpret the condition in the Notification that the basis should only be the accounts maintained under the Central Excise Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue in this case is regarding the fixation of the base clearance for the purpose of Notification No. 198/76. Following the detection of illicit manufacture and clearance (captive consumption) of Phenol Formaldehyde Synthetic Resins by the assessee, M/s. Travancore Plywood Industries Limited, Punalur, the Collector adjudicated the case holding the assessee liable to the offence charged. That finding of the Collector of Central Excise that the assessee manufactured these excisable goods without obtaining excise licence during the period 1974 to 16-9-1977 has become final as the appeal before the Central Board of Excise and Customs was also dismissed on this point. 10. The entire case hinges upon the interpretation of Notification No. 198 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Excise Licence, they did not maintain the Central Excise records and it will not be correct to go against the condition mentioned in the Notification for the purpose of calculating the base period and base clearance. According to him, the stand taken by the department in adding the quantity- of resins produced prior to the issue of the licence is not correct. L-4 Licence was issued to them only on 13-7-1977 for manufacturing this product Phenol Formaldehyde Synthetic Resins. There could not be any excise records regarding the manufacture of this product prior to 13-7-1977 as the respondents were not having any excise licence to manufacture the same. The licence granted was to take effect prospectively and not retrospectively. The Appellat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave to consider Notification No. 198/76 as a whole and not only condition (a) attached to it. This Notification is not to be interpreted in a restricted and narrower sense. A perusal of the record shows that the respondents have been manufacturing this product i.e. Phenol Formaldehyde Synthetic Resins even prior to the issue of the excise licence i.e. 16-9-1977. Their letter dated 12-7-1977 sent to the department shows that they have been producing and cleared Resins from September, 1974 onwards. For interpreting the provisions of Notification No. 198/76-C.E., we have to take into account the entire value of the goods manufactured by the respondents right from September, 1974 onwards for the purpose of calculating clearances under this Noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication No. 198/76, the other records showing such clearances can certainly be taken into account. 16. Under these circumstances, we set aside the findings of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras on this point. 17. Regarding the contention of Shri Ganapathy, the learned Consultant of the respondent that the Appellate Collector did not deal with the contentions of the respondents that the Assistant Collector was not justified in disallowing the entire rebate and that the demand was barred by time, we find force in it. 18. If the entire value of the goods manufactured by the respondents right from 1974 is to be taken into account for calculating clearances under this Notification, it might be possible that the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
