TMI Blog1983 (9) TMI 283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve been succinctly stated in the Appellate Collector s order, the relevant portion of which we reproduce hereunder :- Among other things, appellants manufacture Artificial and Synthetic Resins falling under Tariff Item No. 15A(i). As they wanted to avail of the benefit of 25% reduction in the rate of duty as contemplated in Notification No. 198/76, dated 16-6-1976, their clearances during the years 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76, were considered for arriving at the base clearance quota. The clearances during 1973-74, being the highest, were considered as the base clearance quantity for availing of the above benefit and was approved accordingly. The base clearance quantity was comprised of the PVC Resins and PVA Emulsion only as they were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urpose of Notification No. 198/76 was fixed only for the quantities in respect of PVC Resins and PVA emulsion and not for Tariff Item 15A as a whole. As such the appellants were entitled to the concessional rate of duty for the appellants products PVC Resins and PVA Emulsions only and not for modified grades (compounded grades and calibonds). The compounded grades and calibonds of PVA modified compounded grades were treated as non-excisable and not as exempted under Tariff Item 15A, at the time of fixing base clearance and base year and hence explanation (i) to the clause 1(B) of the Notification No. 198/76 is applicable. The incentive scheme is not operative to the clearances of PVA Compounded grades and calibonds (modified forms), in vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should be extended (during 1977-78 and 1978-79) to the modified resins at least to the extent of the basic resin content therein, he held that in the absence of test report, there was no way to ascertain the resin content of the products. However, he held that the first demand dated 26-4-1979 relating to 1977-78 was time-barred, as also part of the second demand dated 4-5-1979 relating to the period prior to 4-11-1978. 5. In the hearing of the appeal before us, Shri Kampani, the learned Consultant for the appellants, reiterated the submissions contained in the Memorandum of Appeal and stressed, in particular, that non-excisable goods could not be termed exempted goods and brought within the scope of explanation 1(i) to para 1 of the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 of the Table attached to Notification No. 198/76 specifies the goods eligible for the benefits of the Notification thus Item No. of the CET. Description of goods 15A(1) Artificial or synthetic resins and plastic materials. Since the subject goods were not excisable in the base year (i.e. prior to the 1977 budget) they were correctly not included in the base clearances. During 1977-78 and 1978-79, the goods were excisable under Item 15A(1) CET and the appellants were paying duty thereon on that footing. Now, the contention is that during these 2 years, the clearances of these goods should also be taken into account for calculating the exces ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods which were non-excisable under Item 15A(1) CET during the base period. The application of the principle laid down in the explanation to the subject goods was clearly unjustified. The Notification does not specifically set out any condition or principle to be applied in respect of goods which were non-excisable during the base period but were excisable during the incentive years, (the years when the benefit of the notification is sought for in terms of the notification). It is, therefore, only reasonable to hold that the fact that the subject goods were not excisable during the base period would not disentitle the products from the benefit of the notification in the incentive years. Nor do we accept as correct the stand that the excess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
