TMI Blog1982 (12) TMI 195X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t) before the Government of India on 1st of September, 1979 against the order dated 17th of July, 1978 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta in appeal No. 356/CO/1978. The said Revision Petition stood transferred to this Tribunal by virtue of the fiction created by section 35-P of the Act and is, therefore, being disposed off as such. 2. There are as many as 8 grounds of appeal. The primary contention in ground No. 1 is that the order of the Appellate Collector is not a speaking one and, therefore, should be quashed. In ground No. 2 it is submitted that on a plain reading of the impugned order, it is clear that the rejection of the assessee s appeal by the first appellate authority was without any valid reasoning. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot be said to be wrong or suffering from any infirmity. 5. Like the petitioner s representative, Mrs. V. Zutshi also addressed before us lengthly arguments. 6. We, however, do not propose to deal with either the petitioner s arguments as also the respondent s reply thereto because of our inclination to agree with the primary contention that the order of the Appellate Collector which has given rise to cause of action for the present appeal does not project either the primary facts or the reasons for rejection of the appeal and for this purpose reproduce paras 2 to 4 of his order below :- 2. In this case, I find that the appellant removed hydrogenated processed V.N.E. Oil (linseed oil), falling under Item 68, for Industrial purposes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is a separate issue. The point at issue in the present case is whether the so-called super hardened V.P. or vegetable tallow is classified under Item 68 of Central Excise Tariff. From the facts, I find that the product has all the characteristics of a manufactured product having distinctive name, character and use, and it is different from that of processed V.N.E. Oil falling under Item 12 of Central Excise Tariff. 7. From para 2 we notice that though the charge was that the petitioner removed hydrogenated processed V.N.E. oil falling under item 68 without payment of Central Excise duty, the petitioner was subjected to excise duty under item 12 of the Central Excise Tariff. 8. In para 4 it is stated that if any objection for classifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
