9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 385X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the miscellaneous application. The present appeal is filed by Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No. 359/2003 dated 28/10/2003. The respondent was engaged in the manufacture of Veneered Particle Board-commercial, falling under Tariff Item 16B(ii) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff and were availing the benefit of Notification No. 148/73 CE dated 21.07.73. In terms of the Notification, the goods covered by Explanation (II) of the Notification were liable to duty on their value determined in terms of Tariff Value fixed for the goods. The Explanation (II) to the Notification is reproduced below for ready reference: "Explanation II: Particle Boards, veneered with plywood panels on one or both sides shall be treated with as one or two l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the goods of the types manufactured by the respondent i.e Veneered Particle Boards not covered with plywood panels, but with veneer on either side would not be treated as covered by the Explanation (II). The Commissioner (Appeals) took the view that the clarification cannot be made applicable retrospectively to the period in question in the present case. (ii) There was a practice of allowing the benefit of the Notification to the goods being manufactured by the assessee as seen from the Trade Notice issued by the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore No. 26/70 dated 21.02.1970. (iii) The demands have been made in the case by quoting erstwhile Rule 10A which does not fulfill the requirement of raising demand under Rule 10. Accordin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held that the Circular issued in 1989 denying the benefit of the Notification for such goods cannot be made applicable retrospectively for the earlier period. (ii) He also argued that the show-cause notices issued had quoted the wrong Rule which vitiated the entire proceedings and the demand cannot be upheld. In this connection, he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Bhor Industries Vs. Union of India 1991 (51) E.L.T 287 (Bom.). (iii) The learned counsel also asserted that the goods in question were Particle Boards which were pasted on both sides with a very thin layer of plywood, on top of which the veneers were affixed. Hence he submits that the benefit of the Notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the respondent. The Explanation to the Notification specifically gives the benefit of the Notification to Particle Boards, veneered with plywood panels on one or both sides. The crucial aspect of the benefit of the Notification get extended only when there is at least one plywood panel pasted on either side of the Particle Board. In the absence of such a plywood panel, we are of the view that the benefit of the Notification cannot be extended to the goods manufactured by the respondent during the relevant time. 7. We have perused the copy of the Trade Notice No. 26/70 as well as the Board s Circular dated 1989. The Board s Circular 1989 has clarified the position that the benefit of the Notification will not be allowable to Veneered Pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
