TMI Blog1983 (8) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the goods cleared during the period from 14-11-1967 to 5-4-1978 was raised. 2. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras, the second respondent herein. The Appellate Collector by his order dated 10-9-1975 allowed the appeal on the ground that `alkyed resins' included modified alkyed resins. In exercise of the powers conferred in them under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises And Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') the Government of India issued a show cause notice dated 31-8-1976, to the petitioner proposing to review the decision of the Appellate Collector. The petitioner sent a reply dated 29-9-1976. As desired by them, personal hearing was granted on 29-1-1977 at Madras. Having regard to all the submissions made by the petitioner the Government of India passed an order on 31-8-1976 setting aside the order-in- appeal passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras, on appeal and holding that the products of the petitioner were not eligible for the benefit of exemption envisaged by the Notification No. 156 of 1965, and that they are correctly assessable under Item No. 15A(i) of the Central Excise Tar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is a mere matter of proper classification. The liability in relation to excise duty of the petitioner is not increased in any manner. As and when a demand is raised pursuant to the order under challenge, if the petitioner is well founded in their contention that it is not liable to pay any excise duty prior to 5-4-1968, it is open to them to urge it after the assessment and not now. 7. Regarding the contention of the petitioner that the scope of the review jurisdiction cannot mean that it is as wide as appellate jurisdiction, there cannot be any demur since that is the ratio of the decision in 1980 E.L.T. 625. As a matter of fact, there is no widening of jurisdiction under review because paragraph 4 of the show cause notice dated 31-8-1976 states as follows- "........ On examination of the case records the Central Government tentatively hold the view that the order of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras, mentioned above is not proper, legal and correct inasmuch as the two products viz., Beckamines and Super Beckamines mentioned above were other than alkyed resins maleic resins and phenolic resins and exemption notification is not attracted in respect of those ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ins'. The party therefore cannot now take a stand that the impugned products are not `resins'." In view of the above, it was concluded that the impugned products were assessable under Item 15A(1) of the Central Excise Tariff. Therefore, the petitioner was fully put on notice. Regarding the manufacture of products by the petitioner, what formed the subject-matter of issue before the assessing authority and the appellate authority was the eligibility of the petitioner to have the benefit of Notification no. 156/65. This is a narrow view which cannot be accepted. Should the petitioner be not entitled to the benefit of exemption under the said Notification, the question would arise as to how the products of the petitioner are to be categorised. It is that precisely what has been done by the Government of India. I am happy to note that in this case, the Government of India did interfere because the order passed by the Appellate Authority leaves very much to be desired. As to what I mean can be made evident after extracting the order of the appellate authority dated 10-9-1975. That order reads as follows : "Sub : Central Excise - Assessment of the Super Beckamine and Beckamine - Mess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wo items may be cleared free of duty as per Notification No. 156/65, dated 23-9-1965. Sd/- P.N. Menon Sr. Superintendent (Tech.) ........." 11. However, on 5-4-1968 he proposed to raise a demand under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules in the following terms : "......... C. No. V/15A/3/7/67-TS, dated 5th April, 1968 Sub : Central Excise - Resins - assessment of Beckamine 3530 - 50 and Super Beckamine 27 - 566 Messrs Reichhold Chemicals Ltd., Semptian MOR - Orders passed. On a clear appreciation of the facts regarding the assessment of (i) Beckamine 3530 - 50 and Super Beckamine 27 - 566 it has been decided that these two items manufactured by Messrs Reichhold Chemicals Ltd., are assessable to excise duty as Resins other than Alkyed Maleic and Phenolic Resins. You are therefore requested to subject these items to Central Excise duty at 30% ad valorem and the Special excise duty under Item 15A of the Tariff. 2. As regards past clearance, please raise necessary demands for the immediate recovery of duty and appropriate rates on the goods cleared free of duty. The demand may be raised under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
