TMI Blog1996 (1) TMI 373X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Central Excise Tariff Act. 3. Arguing for the appellants, the ld. Counsel submits that even though, in the classification list, product was declared as Palm Stearline it was actually Olein part Palm Oil. They had imported crude stearine. To this crude stearine some quantity Olein part of the Palm oil was adhering. During storage by passing cold water around the tanks the Olein part of the oil came to the surface and was drained out. The quantity was only about 20% and the imported quantity. This drained out Olein part was therefore called by them as fully neutralised and bleached Palm Stearine . This in fact was only olein part of Palm Oil. The Assistant Collector has held that these goods being chemicals and having arisen out of proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Palm Oil or a type of Palm oil, but it is only component of Palm oil. 5. We have heard both sides. The appellants were asked to show cause against the proposed action to change the classification of product from Tariff item Nos. 12 to 68 vide notice dated 26-11-84. For the sake of clarity we are borrowing the narration of charges from the show cause notice itself. On re-examination the issue it appears that fully Neutralised and Bleached Palm Stearine cannot be classified as V.N.E. Oil T.I. 12 as it is only a fraction oil, T.I. 12 covers under its ambit product viz. V.N.E. Oils. All sorts. It appears that stearine of V.N.E. oil is obtained by fractionation of the respective V.N.E. oil. Upon fractionation the V.N.E. Oil is broken into ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 31st December, 1984. We also note that grounds which have been relied upon by the Assistant Collector were not disclosed to the appellants to enable them to produce necessary evidence against the proposed section. Collector (Appeals) also in the internal page 3 of his order has held that appellants did not file reply to the show cause notice issued by the Assistant Collector. We find through letter dated 31st December, 1984 which is placed at page 17 of the paper book the appellants had replied to the notice and explained that they had obtained only olein part of the fully neutralised Palm stearine. Collector (Appeals), therefore, appears to have been proceeded from a wrong premises in holding that no reply was given to the show cause not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
