TMI Blog2004 (10) TMI 471X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oducts namely PU foam and quilted PU foam, under Notification No. 115/75 as amended. The issue is whether intermediary products manufactured are entitled for the above exemption or not. The Commissioner of Central Excise in the impugned order dated 31-3-03 has denied the exemption. The appellants strongly challenged the OIO. 2. Shri Joseph Vellapally Sr. Advocate along with Shri C. Muralidharan, Advocate appeared for the appellants and Shri P.M. Saleem SDR appeared for the revenue. 3. The learned Advocate argued that Notification No. 115/75 dated 30-4-75 as amended from time to time exempts goods (other than rubberized coir mattresses, mixed vegetable oils of Heading No. 15.03 and vegetable fats and oils of Heading No. 15.04) falling un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, the CEGAT held that latex mix manufactured by coir industry is entitled for exemption under Notification No. 115/75. While deciding the above case, the CEGAT has followed the interpretation of the same notification by the Hon ble S.C. of India in the case of Bombay Oil Industries Ltd. [1997 (91) E.L.T. 538 (S.C.)]. In the above case, the Supreme Court has observed - The said notification exempts goods manufactured in factories covered by the industries specified in the Schedule. Item 4 of the Schedule specifies the oil mill and solvent extraction industry. It may be that ordinarily an industry of this nature would have both an oil mill and solvent extraction plant both of which manufacture vegetable oils, but that is no reason, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing authority. He maintained that product of the coir industry is only entitled for the exemption and PU foam is not a product of the coir industry. The adjudicating authority has gone by the definition of coir products in Coir Industries Act, 1953, and came to the conclusion that the impugned goods would not be covered as a coir product. He has also reasoned that the intermediary products manufactured by the appellants will be used in rubberized coir mattresses which themselves are excluded from the scope of Notification No. 115/75. Therefore the notification will not cover the intermediary products. He has also held that the appellant will not be entitled to the benefit of Notification 67/95, as the final product rubberized mattresses are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Collector of Customs v. Wipro Ltd., decided that oxygen hydrogen would not be covered under the Notification 115/75, because prior to its amendment, the notification covered only goods falling under item 68 of the Tariff and at that time, oxygen was not covered under Item 68 and the Board clarified in its clarification dated 4-5-1988 that the exempted goods mentioned in the Notification 115/75 cover only paras item 68 goods. In view of the Board s clarification, the Tribunal took the decision that all goods are not covered by Notification No. 115/75. However, in view of the interpretation of the same Notification by Hon ble S.C., we are not inclined to accept the above decision of the CEGAT. We would like to reiterate that any product i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
