9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the demand was confirmed by the original adjudicating authority wherein the claim of the respondents that one of the product manufactured by them is Turpentine oil falling under central excise heading 3805.19 attracts nil rate of duty, was accepted. He pointed that the Order-in-Original rightly classified the said product under 3814 as solvent which is chargeable to duty. He pointed that the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly held that the respondents were manufacturing Turpentine oil and that the Order-in-Original goes beyond the notice. He further argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly held that the value of Turpentine cleared by the appellants needs to be excluded while calculating the duty liability under central excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dered in the impugned order, therefore the case is remanded back to the adjudicating authority taking into consideration all the facts discussed to the extent as ordered above. There is no dispute raised by the revenue in so far as the point b) of demand is concerned. Insofar as point (a) is concerned, the impugned order holds that the value of clearance of Turpentine oil falling under 3805.19 attracting nil rate of duty needs to be excluded for the purpose of computing the demand of duty. It is noticed that the show-cause notice does not specifically identify the products manufactured by the respondents. The show-cause notice loosely alleges that the appellants are manufacturing the product falling under heading 38.14, 3820.19 and 3210.9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eading 3210.90 and red oxide preservative falling under chapter sub heading 3210.90 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985." In respect of the product which the respondents are claiming to be Turpentine oil, the original adjudicating authority describes the same as a mixture of different solvent, hydro carbon and non-hydro carbon. The heading 3805 reads as under:- "3805 Gum, wood or sulphate turpentine and other turpentine oils produced by the distillation or other treatment of coniferous woods; crude dipentene; sulphite turpentine and other crude paracymene; pine oil containing alphaterpineol as the main constituent - Turpentine oil: 3805.11 "In or in relation to the manufacture of which any process is ordinarily carried on with t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and non-hydrocarbons for use as solvents for paints and ink would appropriately fall for classification under CSH 3814.00 and not under CSH 3805.19 of the CETA, 1985." 5. From the above, it is apparent that the show-cause notice alleges that the respondents are manufacturing solvent falling under 3814 and Turpentine oil falling under 3805.19. the original adjudicating authority after giving reasoning in para 27 and 28 of the order holds that the said product, described as mixture of different solvent, hydro carbon and non-hydro carbon would be appropriately classifiable under 3814 and not under 3805.19. In this background, it would not be proper to say that the original adjudicating authority has gone beyond the show-cause notice. The or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
