I.J. Rao, Member (T)

1. These three appeals raising common question of fact and law were heard together and are being disposed of together. Appeals Nos. 912 913/86 are revenue appeals where M/s Kashmir Vanaspati are the respondents and appeal No. 420/86 is an appeal of M/s Kashmir Vanaspati where C.C.E. Chandigarh is the respondent. The questions involved being similar, appeals are being decided together.

2. The main question to be decided in all these appeals is whether the nickel catalyst, bleaching activated earth and activated carbon (admittedly classifiable under Tariff Item No. 68 GET) used by M/s Kashmir Vanaspati (hereinafter referred to as the appellants) in the course of manufacture of vegetable product are entitled to the benefit of notification No. 201/79-CE (hereinafter referred to as the said Notification) or not. Another question that would arise is whether the demand raised by the Revenue against the appellants was in time.

3. The admitted facts are that nickel catalyst is used as a catalyst in the production of vegetable products. It appears that there cannot ordinarily be production of vegetable product on a commercial scale without the use of catalyst. The sa