Back
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND GOLD (CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
G. Sankaran, V.S. Rama Devi, M. Gouri Shankar Murthy, JJ.
Collector of Central Excise, Bombay -Appellant
Versus
Nirlon Synthetic Fibres and Chemicals Ltd. -Respondent
Order No. 304/83-C, 304 of 1983
Decided On : 12-10-1983
M. Gouri Shankar Murthy, Member (J)
1. In consequence of the Appellate Collector allowing five Appeals preferred by the Respondent against five adjudication orders (nos. 1274, 2712, 2709, 4946 and 4950) made on diverse dates between 25-1-80 and 9-4-80, Government of India issued a notice dated 19-5-81 requiring the Respondent to show cause as to why the order of the Appellate Collector (allowing the five Appeals of the Respondent) should not be set aside, in exercise of the powers of Review vested under Sec. 36(2) of tie Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944-as it read at the relevant time (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The proceedings in review that were thus initiated were transferred to the Tribunal and heard as Appeals, pursuant to the provisions in Sec. 35(P) of the Act. They are Appeal Nos. 1449, 1489,1491, 1493, 1494.
2. Identical issues arising in all the five Appeals are-
(a) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, recovery of Caprolactum from wash water constituted manufacture of Caprolactum ?
(b) If so, was it classifiable under item 14AA of the 1st Schedule to the Act. (Adjudication Order No. 1274) and accordingly assessable to duty during the periods between-
(i) 23-3-78 and 31-5-78
(Adjudication Order No. 2712);
(ii) 1-6-78 and 31-7-78
(Adjudication Order No. 2709);
so that their refund applications do not maintain ; and they are further liable to pay differential duty on such Caprolactum during the periods between-
(iii) March, 1978 and July, 1978 (Adjudication Order No. 4946);
(iv) August, 1978 and March, 1979 (Adjudication Order No. 4950) ?
(c) Was the Notification No. 47/77 dated 1-4-77 applicable to the facts of each of the Appeals ?
(d) Was the show cause notice for the Review in order ? Our decision- herein governs all other Appeal Nos. 1489, 1491, 1493, 1494 as well.
3. The undisputed sequence of events that culminated in the present proceedings are-
(a) a notice dated 21-7-79 requiring the Respondent to show cause as to why the Caprolactum recovered from wash water should not be classified under item 14(AA) of the 1st Schedule to the Act resulted in an adjudication Order No. 1274 dated 25-1-80. It was held in the said order that the Caprolactum, in question, was classifiable under item 14(AA) of the 1st Schedule and was eligible to the benefit of the exemption contained in Notification No. 47/77 dated 1-4-77 provided the conditions therein were fulfilled;
(b) the Respondent's applications for refund of
(i) Rs. 1,01,574.16 for the period 23-3-78 to 31-5-78; and
(ii) Rs. 52,137.33 for the period 1-6-78 to 31-7-78 culminated in Adjudication Orders Nos. 2712 and 2709 by which the said claims were dismissed on the grounds that recovery of Caprolactum from wash water is "manufacture" and the Respondent was ineligible to the benefit of the Notification No. 47/77 dated 1-4-77, inasmuch as, the Caprolactum was made use of in the manufacture of tyre cord in their factory. (Adjudication Orders Nos. 2712 and 2709);
(c) notices dated 6-9-79 and 23-10-79, requiring the Respondent to show cause as to why they should not pay amounts of Rs. 2,37,194 (between March, 1978 and July, 1978) and Rs. 5,33,711.38 (between August, 1978 and March, 1979) respectively, towards differential duty on Caprolactum recovered from wash water and solid waste consequent upon difference between the approved price and declared value of the said Caprolactum by the Respondent, resulted in Adjudication Orders Nos. 4946 and 4950. (Although the preamble in the said orders show that they relate to Caprolactum recovered from wash water, it would appear that they did also concern the Caprolactum recovered out of solid waste);
(d) five Appeals one each against each of the aforesaid orders in adjudication, along with two others in relation to duty leviable on Caprolactum recovered from solid waste were all disposed of by a single consolidated order dated 2-1-81 by the Appellate Collector, who set aside all the aforesaid adjudication orders in so far a
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
