9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 385X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of whether the Veneered Particle Board without the plywood will be eligible for such benefit - the reference to Trade Notice is not relevant to decide the issue before us. It is on record that some of the show-cause notices have cited Rule 10 for demand of the differential duty whereas the certain other show-cause notices have cited Rule 10A of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of Department. - E/Early Hearing/20674/2017 in E/457/2004-DB - Final Order No. 22984 / 2017 - Dated:- 12-12-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Technical Member Dr. J. Harish, Deputy Commissioner (AR) For the Appellant Shri Venkatesh R. Bhagat, Advocate For the Respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w-cause notices for the period from 01.11.1973 to 31.12.1977. The notices were issued citing erstwhile Rule 10 and 10A. While passing the Order-in-Original, the demands falling under following periods were dropped on the ground of time bar. 01.11.1973 to 30.09.1974 and 01.01.1976 to 30.04.1976 The rest of the demands were upheld by the original authority and when the issue was carried out before the Commissioner (Appeals), the impugned order came to be passed in which the entire demands were dropped. Aggrieved by the decision, Revenue is in appeal before us. 2. With the above background, we heard Dr. Harish, DR for the Revenue as well as Shri Venkatesh R Bhagat, learned advocate appearing for the respondent. 3. The learned DR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is against the respondent, the citing of the 1989 Board Circular is only incidental and cannot be used to say that the effect of the Circular cannot be granted to the earlier period. (iii) He further argued that wrong quoting of the Rule in the show-cause notice will not vitiate demand if the show-cause notice otherwise outlined the reasons in detail for making the demand. In this connection, he relied on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of J.K. Steel Ltd. Vs. Union of India 1978 (2) E.L.T. J 355 (S.C). 4. The learned counsel for the respondent justified the impugned order. His main submissions are summarized below: (i) The Explanation figuring in the Notification No. 148/73 was finding place even in the ea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is necessary to appreciate the nature of the goods manufactured by the respondent during the disputed period. The nature of the goods manufactured has been described by the original authority in this order dated 06.11.2001. The Veneered Particle Boards Commercial is said to have core made up of Particle Board covered with only one layer of veneer. The core is not covered on either side with plywood panels. 6.1. For the goods to fall within the scope of the Explanation (II) to the Notification, the Particle Boards should be covered on one or both sides with plywood panels. From the nature of the product outlined in the Order-in-Original, we conclude that the goods in question are not pasted with plywood panels on one or both sides. An ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Notice No. 26/70 dated 21.02.1970, we note that it has clarified the position with reference to the Notification No. 201/69 dated 16.08.1969 it is clarified that the tariff value is to be determined on the basis of the plywood. The Trade Notice has clarified that the Veneered Particle Board on which decorative plywood is pasted on either or both sides are to be assessed as though it consisted only of said plywood. We note that the Trade Notice has not clarified the aspect of whether the Veneered Particle Board without the plywood will be eligible for such benefit. As it is we find that the reference to Trade Notice is not relevant to decide the issue before us. 8. Lastly we consider the argument made on the question of citing the wrong ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
