9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 914X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gued that they are engaged in manufacture of Bathing Bars (Resham Brand), Silky Brand Liquid Hand Wash, Kranti Concesntrated Floor Cleaner, Kranti Black Phenyl, Fighter, Multipurpose Sanitary Liquid, Charkha Bartan Bar etc. The appellants were availing exemption under Notification No. 8/88-CE dated 1.3.1988, which exempted the above mentioned manufactured goods from whole of Central Excise duty. The appellant satisfied the other condition of the said notification and the same was not in challenge. The appellants were also eligible for small scale exemption. Learned Counsel pointed out that the demand has been raised in respect of (i) Silky brand liquid hand wash/liquid soap, (ii) Resham brand bathing bars/soap (iii) Kranti Concentrated Floo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and ancillaries. In view of the above the sample u/r is not "synthetic detergent" as it is free from subsidiary ingredients mentioned above." 3.1 He argued that the appellant had also submitted product for testing of Independent Laboratory namely, Italab Private Ltd. (a Government approved testing laboratory). However, the report was not considered by the Commissioner. 3.2 He argued that the second report dated 19.10.2002 of the Chemical Examiner was no result of any testing but was simple an opinion. 3.3 The second issue relates to the item Resham Brand bathing bars/soap, the sample of the said product was also sent to the Chemical Examiner to be tested for whether the sample are "laundry and carbolic soap or otherwise." He pointed ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e accepts that this discrepancy needs to be dissolved. He further argued that Chemical Examiner reports clearly states that Silky Brand Liquid Hand Wash need not be tested for having detergent as detergents are not used for hand wash. He argued that clarification of Chemical Examiner dated 19.10.2012 also dismissed the appellant's claim that the goods are synthetic detergent. 4.1 Learned AR further pointed out that the Resham Brand Bar/soap is obviously not a laundry soap as the same is being sold as bathing bar. He argued that in this circumstances, the only thing that was required to be established that it is not carbolic soap. The entry under the notification read laundry and carbolic soap. In these circumstances, bathing soaps get excl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctive agents or soaps or mixtures thereof and the same were found to be present in the sample. The subsidiary constituents like builders, boosters, fillers and ancillaries were missing. In these circumstances, it is felt that the Commissioner has simply ignored the reports of the independent laboratory. To that extent, the order of the Commissioner is not a speaking order. 5.1 In so far as the item Resham Brand bathing bar/soap is concerned, the Chemical Examiner in his report dated 20.9.2012 has described it is other than carbolic soap. The contention of the appellant is that the same has not been tested for laundry soap and for synthetic detergent. It is seen that the product has been described as a bathing soap and, therefore, the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
