TMI Blog1984 (7) TMI 274X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods, not elsewhere specified), as urged by the appellants. 2._Before proceeding with the rival claims of the two sides, it would be useful to set out a few basic facts relevant to this case :- November 1974 - The appellants commenced manufacture of Caprolactum Castings under the brand name NYLOCAST . Item 15-A(2) existed in the Central Excise Tariff at that time. 1-3-1975 - Item 68 introduced in the Central Excise Tariff. The appellants, however, did not come forward to get a licence and pay duty as, they claim, they never employed more than 49 workers in their factory and were, therefore, totally exempt from payment of duty under Item 68 at that time. 4-3-1977 - Central Excise Officers visited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... desired to inspect the said original report. 19-1-1980 15-2-1980 23-6-1980 24-6-1980 - Four show cause notices were issued to the appellants on the respective dates calling upon them to pay the aggregate duty of Rs. 45,28,595.12 for the period from 1-3-1975 to 31-3-1980 under Item 15A(2). 30-7-1980 - The appellants asked for a full copy of the report of the Deputy Chief Chemist and also desired to cross-examine him. 1-l0-1980 - While the adjudication before the Collector was pending, the appellants made a representation direct to the Central Board of Excise Customs. 27-11-1980 - The Board issued their Tariff Advice No. 78/80 dated 27-11-1980 according to which Nylon Monome ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al literature to explain the nature of the starting material (caprolactum), that of the end-product (casting) and the process of manufacture. Ultimately, an agreed position emerged between both the sides. We set out the agreed position below. This is virtually the same as contained in paragraph 2 of the Board s Tariff Advise No. 78/80, dated 27-11-80 except that the portion underlined has been added by us on the basis of the agreement between both the sides :- 2. The process of manufacture of the Monomer Castings, as given by the manufacturers, is that caprolactum, which has paid duty under Item 14AA of CET, is melted in glass flask under controlled conditions and thereafter small quantity of organic chemicals is added into the flask to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Department maintains, on the other hand, that the expression made of does not mean the same things as made from or made out of and since the end-product is plastic, it has to be considered as made of plastic. This, in short, is the substantive point of dispute now. 5. In this connection, two judgments of the Gujarat and Rajasthan High Courts were placed before us. Both sides referred to them in the course of their arguments. The first judgment [1981 (8) E.L.T. 653 (Guj.) - Jalal Plastic Industries Others v. Union of India Others] related to the case of plastic bangles. These bangles were manufactured out of monomer as the starting material. However, polymerisation took place in the course of manufacturing process. In short, the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not be treated as final. We find that the Gujarat High Court judgment has not been stayed by the Supreme Court. Since the two High Courts had interpreted the scope of Item 15A(2) in a particular manner which supports the appellants case and since no contrary judgment of any other High Court has been brought to our notice, the said judgments of the Gujarat and Rajasthan High Courts are binding on this Tribunal. 6. The appellants have brought to our notice that there were six other manufacturers in India, four in Bombay and two elsewhere, who were also manufacturing Nylon Monomer Castings from caprolactum but in their case the Board s Tariff Advice has been followed and, accordingly, their end-products (castings) have been classified und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stice by not producing the Deputy Chief Chemist for cross-examination and by not informing the appellants at the time of personal hearing before him that he did not propose to agree with the Board s Tariff Advice and his own Trade Notice based thereon, (ii) whether the Board s Tariff Advice and the Collector s Trade Notice were binding on the Department (though both sides agreed that while acting in his quasi-judicial capacity the Collector was not bound by either the Tariff Advice or the Trade Notice), (iii) whether machined Nylon Monomer Castings did not fall under Item 15A(2) on the further ground that they were not known in the trade as articles of plastics but were known as engineering goods or machinery components. (iv) whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
