Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1994 (7) TMI 167

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... set aside the demand confirmed by the Additional Collector to the extent of Rs. 1,03,390.65 in respect of Sodium Rosinate falling under sub-heading No. 3806.90 which was stated to have been cleared without payment of duty for the period Jan 91 to June 91 and the penalty of Rs. 20,000/-. 2. The assessee is aggrieved with the order-in-original dt. 29th April 92 passed by the Additional Collector confirming a demand of Rs. 3,93,528.75 in respect of the above said rules for the period from 1-3-1987 to 31-12-1990 and a penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. 3. The facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturing printing and writing paper including paper not less than 75% by weight of pulp made by bagasse falling under sub-heading No. 4802.1 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... al. The Tribunal has considered at great length the technical literature, trade parlance and the marketability of the product and after detail examination in a batch of cases filed by the paper manufacturers has come to the conclusion that Sodium Rosinate has not come into existence and the manner in which it occurs during the manufacture of paper is not in a marketable stage and hence it cannot be made excisable. The Tribunal has taken this view in the case of Indian Cardboard Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise as reported in 1991 (54) E.L.T. 221 as well as in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh Others v. V. Shell Paper Pvt. Ltd. Others as reported in 1991 (34) ECR 337. Ld. JDR submitted that the Tribunal ha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... or a nonviscous liquid is used by some mills, because these formulations are readily water soluble and can, therefore, be added directly to the pulp slurry". On reading the above portion, the ld. JDR submitted that rosin size is prepared by reacting rosin with aqueous alkali and rosin size which is nothing but Sodium Rosinate which is used in paper mills. Therefore, this technical literature clearly indicated that the Soium Rosinate manufactured by the appellants was clearly a marketable commodity. The HSN amended IInd Edition of Feb 91 under Section VI, Chapter 38.06 also referred to the Sodium Resinates which are obtained by boiling powdered rosin or resin acids in a solution of sodium or potassium hydroxides. It also referred to the s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tailed examination and hence the Tribunal s ruling does not require any review by reference to larger bench. He also submitted that the demands are barred by time as no allegation of suppression in the show cause notice. 7. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and in particular the request made by the ld. JDR for referring this matter to the larger bench. At the outset, it has been pointed out that the Revenue has not made such request in the appeal memo. There has been no reference to this extract in the appeal memo nor any allegations made in the show-cause notice that the Sodium Resinate said to be arising during the course of manufacture of the paper is the one which is referred to in the technical authority .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Revenue has filed any appeal before the Supreme Court. it appears that these judgments have been accepted by the Department. As can be seen from the showcause notice, the department has raised the same grounds as arised in the appeals decided by the Tribunal. Therefore, the judgment of the Tribunal is having full binding force and that we cannot take a different view from the view expressed by the Tribunal in the cited case. Even on an independent appreciation of the contention of the ld. JDR, we cannot .... that we can draw an independent inference from the extract referred to above. The extract referred by the ld. JDR does not pin-point to the item in issue. We cannot draw any inference from reading of the above passage that it is the sa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates