TMI Blog1994 (3) TMI 204X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Item 15A(1) could be deemed as eligible for exemption from the Central Excise duty under Notification No. 182/82-C.E., dated 11-5-1982. 2. We have heard Shri R.J. Majra, ld. Advocate on behalf of the appellants. He submitted that the lower authorities have held that the appellants product was not eligible for exemption under Notification No 182/82-C.E., dated 11-5-1982 on the grounds that the exemption under the said notification was admissible only in respect of articles of plastic manufactured exclusively from materials falling under Tariff Item 15A(1) and not when they are made out of duty-paid materials falling both under Tariff Items 15A(1) and 15A(3). He submitted that in view of the absence of any stipulation in the Notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thorities the goods have been held as not eligible for exemption under the notification on entirely different grounds. He stated that the appellants had been discriminated against by the Department since their competitors had been permitted to avail the exemption under the said notification, in respect of similar products. 3. On behalf of the respondents Shri Somesh Arora, ld. JDR submitted that as pointed out in the Tribunal s Order No. 1157/90-C, dated 29-10-1990 in the appellants own case the Collector (Appeals) had held that they were not entitled to the exemption under Sr. No. 38 of the Notification No. 132/86 since in terms of Rule 3 of the Interpretative Rules insulated products viz. thermoware with plastic content ranging from 51 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aterials falling under Tariff Item 15A(1). He stated that the appellants claim that the order passed by the Assistant Collector had gone beyond the charge in the show cause notice is not correct in view of the consistent finding by the lower authorities that the goods in question were not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 182/82-C.E., dated 11-5-1982. Shri Arora added that the appellants contention that they had been discriminated against since the Tribunal has to examine each case on its merits and not on the considerations of equity. 4. We have examined the records of the case and considered the submissions on behalf of both sides. The appellants case is that in the absence of any stipulation in the Notification No. 182/8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of plastics falling under sub-heading 3922.90 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 for the purposes of exemption under Notification No. 132/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 which exempted `Articles of Plastics provided they were made out of goods falling under Heading Nos. 3901 to 3915 of the Schedule on which duty had already been paid, was examined by the Tribunal in the appellants own case reported in 1991 (53) E.L.T. 65. In para 9 of its order the Tribunal held as under :- * * * * * * * * 7. On the ratio of the decisions quoted above, we accept the appellants contention that in the absence of any stipulation in Notification No. 182/82-C.E., dated 11-5-1982 that `Articles of Plastics falling under Tarif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
