Order No. A-732/CAL/98 arising from in Appeal No. E(SB) 592/92. Case: Chariot Cement Company Vs Commissioner of C. Ex., Bhubaneswar. Central Information Commission
| Case Number | Order No. A-732/CAL/98 arising from in Appeal No. E(SB) 592/92 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Shri S.K. Bagaria, Advocate and For Respondents: Shri S.N. Ghosh, JDR. |
| Judges | Shri P.C. Jain, Member (T) and Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (J) |
| Issue | Central Excise Act, 1944 - Section 11A(1) |
| Citation | 1999 (112) ELT 277 (Tribunal) |
| Judgement Date | August 05, 1998 |
| Court | Central Information Commission |
Order:
Archana Wadhwa, Member (J), (Eastern Bench At Calcutta)
-
Briefly stated the facts of the case are as under:-
1.1. The appellant firm, M/s. Chariot Cement Company during the period relevant for the purposes of this appeal was manufacturing HDPE Woven Sacks and was consuming the same captively without payment of any excise duty leviable thereon. As per the declaration filed by them to their jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise under the erstwhile Notification No. 111/78, dated 9-5-1978, they claimed exemption in respect of HDPE Woven Sacks in terms of Notification No. 223/86-C.E., dated 3-4-1986, as amended.
1.2. Show cause notice dated 28-8-1991 denying the benefit of exemption Notification No. 223/86-C.E., and raising duty of HDPE Woven Sacks/Bags manufactured and used by the appellants during the period from 2-12-1986 to 31-12-1989, was issued by invoking the larger period of limitation. Before the Commissioner, the appellants defended them on the merits as also on the point of limitation, but did not succeed. Vide the impugned order, the demand of duty of Rs. 9,60,463.00 was confirmed against the appellants under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Penalty of Rs. 75,000.00 was imposed under Rule 173Q. Being aggrieved with the said order, the appellants have preferred the instant appeal before us.
-
We have heard Shri S.K. Bagaria, learned Advocate for the appellants and Shri S.N. Ghosh, learned JDR, for the respondent Commissioner.
-
Notification No. 223/86 was issued on 3-4-1986 exempting Woven Sacks falling under Heading 63.01 from whole of duty of excise leviable thereon. The said Notification was amended on 20-11-1986 by Notification No. 453/86-C.E., whereby the following proviso was inserted in the Notification:-
Provided that the exemption contained in this notification shall apply only if such woven sacks of polymers of ethylene or propylene, or as the case may be, a combination thereof are manufactured on flat knitting looms.
The said Notification was again amended on 7-1-1987 by Notification No. 3/87-C.E., whereby the aforesaid earlier proviso was substituted by the following proviso:-
Provided that nothing contained in this notification shall apply if such woven sacks of polymers of ethylene or propylene, or as the case may be, a combination thereof, are manufactured on circular looms.
The said...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Order No. A-257/CAL/99 arising from in Appeal No. E (SB)605/92. Case: Sap Bagging Co. (P) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of C. Ex., Bhubaneswar. CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal)
...against the assessee in the case of M/s. Chariot Cement Company v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar reported in 1999 (112) ELT 277 (Tribunal) = 1998 (28) RLT 558 (CEGAT). As such, he is restricting his arguments on the point of limitation. He also clarified that in the case of Ch......
-
Order No. A-257/CAL/99 arising from in Appeal No. E (SB)605/92. Case: Sap Bagging Co. (P) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of C. Ex., Bhubaneswar. CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal)
...against the assessee in the case of M/s. Chariot Cement Company v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar reported in 1999 (112) ELT 277 (Tribunal) = 1998 (28) RLT 558 (CEGAT). As such, he is restricting his arguments on the point of limitation. He also clarified that in the case of Ch......