9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (4) TMI 624X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal No. 12/95 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Trichy rejecting the refund claims filed by the appellants and confirming the impugned order passed by the Asst. Commissioner holding that the four refund claims involved a total amount of Rs. 7,37,62,409.76 filed under Section 11B of the Act for refund on the ground that process of cutting, slitting and perforation of the jumbo rolls into the finished cinematographic film would amount to manufacture and duty paid by the appellants was correctly paid and it did not warrant refund in the matter. 3. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his order has followed his earlier Order-in-appeal No. 133/94 (CBE), dt 26-12-1994 which is also in Appeal in E/207/95. Appellants had relied before him the Ape ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants had relied on large number of judgments and also Board's Circular No. 23/88 CX.3, dated 5-9-1988. However, the Commissioner did not accept the citations referred to including Board's Circular. 7. The same Commissioner by his Order-in-appeal No. 147/91, dated 18-6-1991 rejected three refund claims amounting to Rs. 20,22,794.04 on the same reasoning and without considering the catena of judgments cited by appellants. However, it is noticed that facts in this order-in-appeal No. 147/91 did not pertain to slitting of jumbo rolls but it pertained to manufacture of magnetic tapes viz. Computer tapes falling under chapter sub-heading 8523.19 and Audio Professional tapes (spools) falling under sub-heading 8323.11 out of magnetic t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the Apex Court and the same was not admitted as can be seen by the extract appearing in 1997 (94) A245. He therefore submits that the issue in their own case has already been settled by the cited decision of Tribunal in the case of Choksi Bros. v. C.C.E. (supra). Therefore, he submits that appeal No. E/1064/96, E/481-483/97, E/207/95 and E/2808/91-C are required to be allowed with consequential relief. 9. In so far as appeal No. E/2809/910, arising from OIA No. 147/91 dt 18-6-1991, Ld. Chartered accountant fairly submits that the issue does not pertain to slitting of jumbo rolls, but it deals with slitting and cutting of Jumbo rolls of Video magnetic tapes into Pancakes. This issue was agitated in the case of Dipen Textiles (P) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a process of manufacture. He also cites the case of Brakes India Ltd v. Superintendent of C. Ex as in 1998 (101) E.L.T. 241 wherein the drilling, trimming and chamfering of brake lining blanks purchased from market amounts to process of manufacture. He submits that if this principle as laid down in the latest judgment of Supreme Court, he points out, then the process of slitting of the jumbo rolls is required to be considered as process of manufacture and hence duty was correctly paid by them which is not refundable. 12. He submits that in so far as the Appeal E/2809/91 is concerned, same is covered in Revenue's favour in terms of Dipen Textiles (P) Ltd (supra) and later followed by the Tribunal in the case of Electronics Mechanicals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls does not amount to process of manufacture. However, we note that the authorities below have not considered the aspect pertaining to time bar of the claims and also pertaining to the unjust enrichment as pleaded by Ld. DR. 15. The prayer of Ld. DR for considering the issue in the light of subsequent Apex Court judgments does not stand to reason as the issue pertaining to cutting and slitting of jumbo rolls is squarely covered by the above cited decision which has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 16. At this stage Ld. Chartered accountant submits that most of the refund claims are within time except few claims in E/207/95. He also submits that in a similar case in U.P. Twiga Fibre Glass Ltd. as in 2000 (116) E.L.T. 537 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2809/91C arising from OIA No. 147/91 dt 18-6-1991 is concerned, we notice that the issue is different and does not pertain to cutting and slitting of jumbo rolls of cinematographic films, X-ray films, Graphic/Art films but pertained to manufacture of pancakes from jumbo rolls of Audio magnetic tapes. This issue is no longer res integra as it has been considered in detail by the Tribunal in the case of Dipen Textiles (P) Ltd. by a majority order. We also find that this decision was again followed by the Tribunal in the case of Electronics Mechanicals Industries (supra). Therefore, the law in this regard is now well settled and the prayer of Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for reference to the Larger Bench is liable for rejection. Therefore, we do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
