TMI Blog1988 (2) TMI 213X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... astics Limited, appellants in the first appeal, are the manufacturers of Phenol Formaldehyde moulding powder (hereinafter referred to as P.P. moulding powder) and Urea formaldehyde moulding powder (hereinafter referred to as U.F. Moulding Powder). 2. Superintendent of Central Excise, Range VI of Division R , Bombay-1, issued a show cause notice No. 1.5A(IPL)R-VI/81/983, dated 26-9-1981, to M/s. Indian Plastics Limited, Bombay demanding the differential duty amounting to Rs. 42,11,434.79 on the grounds that :- (i) the Urea Technical Grade received by M/s. Indian Plastics Ltd. from M/s. Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. for use in the manufacture of U.F. Moulding Powder was not derived from raw naptha to claim concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 7/80, dated 27-2-1980, but was manufactured partly from associated gas and partly from Raw Naptha, by Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd.; (ii) in the manufacture of U.F. Moulding Powder, other ingredients, such as, Hexamine, Sodium Sulphate etc., were also used which were not derived directly or indirectly from Raw Naptha. Therefore, the concessional rates prescribed under Notification No. 7/80, dated 27-2-198 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tha diverted for manufacture of non-fertilizer products, M/s. Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. first work out the total consumption of ammonia in this regard and apportion it to raw naptha and associated gas on pro rate basis. It is, therefore, clear that total non-fertilizer products including Urea Technical Grade, manufactured are not manufactured from ammonia derived from raw naptha. Therefore, the technical grade urea, cannot be considered to have been made from naptha solely and exclusively. In view of the position explained above, M/s. Indian Plastics. Ltd., Bombay-67 were not entitled for claim concessional rate of Central Excise duty under Notification No. 7/80, dated 27-2-1980. Therefore, the demand issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Range VI, Division R , Bombay-1, vide his No. 15A/IPL/R-VI/ 81/983, dated 26-9-1981, for differential duty of Rs. 42,11,434.79 to M/s. Indian Plastics Ltd., Bombay-67 appears to be correct and sustainable and is liable to be confirmed. Accordingly this appeal is being filed against the order-in-original passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Division R , Bombay-1, vide letter No. V-15A(15)6/81, dated 15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the demand for differential duty on P.F. Moulding Powder as the same was not subject matter of appeal filed before him under Section 35E(4) of the Central Excises and Salt Act; (v) Collector (Appeals) has based his findings on surmises and presumptions. There is no evidence to hold that Technical Grade Urea manufactured by M/s. Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited and received by the appellants M/s. Indian Plastics Limited was not manufactured from raw naptha. On the other hand, in the letters dated 12-9-1980 and 15-6-1981 from the Superintendent of Central Excise, Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Range addressed to the Superintendent of Central Excise, Range V, Division R , it was clearly stated that Technical Grade Urea was manufactured from Ammonia obtained from Raw Naptha on which appropriate Excise duty was paid. The findings of the Collector (Appeals) was totally erroneous; (vi) Appeal No. E/1935/87-C filed by the Revenue is not sustainable as Collector (Appeals) correctly held that there was no allegation of suppression or mis-statement in the demand show cause notice and the time-limit of six months is applicable if any differential duty is at all recove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... portion in EA2 application which deals with P.F. moulding powder. While giving his findings on this point, the Collector (Appeals) should have discussed in details the particular portion of EA2 application and also the authorisation of the Collecot of Central Excise, to bring out clearly that the application was, infact, in respect of P.F. moulding powder and U.F. moulding powder. As he has not done so, the matter is required to be examined afresh, with reference to the particular documents, for giving clear findings discussing the details by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. Secondly, in his findings at internal pages 6 and 7 of the Order-in-appeal (pages 51 and 52 of the Paper Book filed by M/s. Indian Plastics Limited), the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) has clearly stated that the Respondents had produced two letters dated 12th September, 1980 and 15-6-1981 from the Superintendent of Central Excise, Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. Range addressed to Superintendent of Central Excise, Range V, Division R , wherein it was clearly held that Technical Grade urea is exclusively manufactured from Ammonia obtained from raw naptha as the main raw mate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mand for duty should be restricted to a period of six months prior to the date of issue of show cause notice. In the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue it has been stated that it was alleged in the concluding para of the Annexure to the show cause notice that the assessee had filed wrong declaration for getting their classification list approved. Neither party herein filed before us a copy of the show cause notice. As the appeal filed by the Revenue is on the limitation point only, it was necessary for them to substantiate the ground of their appeal by producing necessary documents. They have not done so, nor have they produced a copy of the show cause notice with its annexure at the time of hearing before us. In the circumstances, we are not in a position to examine the grounds of their appeal. Since we remand the matter to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, he should examine this point as well and give a finding after giving necessary opportunity to both the parties to substantiate their respective claims. 8. In view of the above discussions, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matters to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay for de-no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
