Skip to content


Synthetic and Polymer Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On
Reported in(1987)(31)ELT466TriDel
AppellantSynthetic and Polymer Industries
RespondentCollector of Central Excise
Excerpt:
.....namely, pva compound grade and calibonds (modified resins) were not excisable at all during the base period which was 1973-74. in the present appeal, the base year was 1975-76 during which time item 68 came to be introduced in the central excise tariff schedule and, therefore, the appellants' products epoxy resins fell under item 68 cet though they were not excisable under item 15a(1) cet. he also submitted that notification no. 198/76 exempted only specified goods. on 16-6-1976, when the notification was issued, epoxy resins did not fall within any of the categories of goods specified in the table to the said notification. what the appellants want is that the benefit of the notification should be extended to their product even though, on the date the notification was issued, their.....
Judgment:
1. The captioned appeals were initially filed as Revision Applications before the Central Government which under Section 35-P of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, have come as transferred proceedings to this Tribunal for disposal as if they were appeals filed before it.

2. Since the issue involved in all the captioned appeals is the same, they are disposed of by this common order. A copy of this order shall be placed in each appeal file.

3. The crucial issue arising for determination in these appeals is whether the appellants' products "Epoxy Resins", which were not excisable under Item 15-A of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule during the base year 1975-76 and which were not included in the base clearances, are eligible to the benefit of Notification No. 198/76 when these products became excisable under tariff Item No. 15A(1) GET subsequently, and were cleared during the months January to March, 1978, August to December, 1978 and January to March, 1979.

4. There are certain other issues raised by the appellants and by the Departmental representative in the course of hearing. We do not propose to advert to or deal with these contentions in the view of the matter which we propose to take.

5. The appeals were heard on the 9th and 10th January, 1984. Shri Mehta, Counsel for the Appellants, drew our attention to this Tribunal's decision in the case of Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico Printing Co. Ltd., Bombay Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, reported in 1983 ELT 2403 (CEGAT). He contended that the ratio of the said decision applied squarely to the facts in the appeals before us.

6. Shri A.K. Jain, representing the Respondent, urged that the present cases were not on all fours with the one decided by the Tribunal in 1983 ELT 2403 (CEGAT). The difference was that, in the decided case, the substances involved, namely, PVA Compound Grade and Calibonds (modified resins) were not excisable at all during the base period which was 1973-74. In the present appeal, the base year was 1975-76 during which time Item 68 came to be introduced in the Central Excise Tariff Schedule and, therefore, the appellants' products epoxy resins fell under Item 68 CET though they were not excisable under Item 15A(1) CET. He also submitted that Notification No. 198/76 exempted only specified goods. On 16-6-1976, when the Notification was issued, epoxy resins did not fall within any of the categories of goods specified in the Table to the said Notification. What the appellants want is that the benefit of the Notification should be extended to their product even though, on the date the Notification was issued, their products were not falling within the scope of Serial No. 14 relating to tariff Item 15 A(1) CET of the aforesaid Table and were also not excisable under 15 A(1) CET during the base year.

7. We have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. In our view the distinction sought to be made out by the Senior Departmental Representative between the Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico Printing Co. Ltd. case (1983 ELT 2403) and the present appeal does not make any difference as to the conclusion. What we are concerned with is the proper construction of Clause (b) of the opening paragraph of the Notification read with explanation (i) thereto. Our decision referred to above had dealt with the matter at length. The applicability of the ratio of that decision to the facts of the present cases would not get diluted because of the fact that unlike in the decided case (where the goods were not excisable during the base period, but were excisable in the incentive period), the goods in the present cases were not excisable under 15A(1) CET during the base period but were nevertheless excisable under Item 68 CET. What we are really concerned with is the entire sweep and scope of Serial No. 14 of the Table annexed to Notification No. 198/76. Serial No. 14 reads as follows :--------------------------------------------------------------------------S.No. Item No. of the Description of Unit for First Schedule goods calcula- to the Central tion.

Excises & Salt-------------------------------------------------------------------------..

...

...

.....

...

...

...14 15A(1) Artificial or synthetic Weight resins and plastic..

...

...

.....

...

...

...------------------------------------------------------------------------- On a plain reading of the Notification, the base clearances would be the clearances of all the products which fell for classification under 15A(1) CET as it stood during the base period and the excess clearances, of all the products which fell within the scope of 15A(1) CET during the incentive period. The fact that the coverage and scope of Item 15A(1) CET was not the same but was different in the base period and the incentive period would not, in our opinion, make any difference to the above position. Nor is a product to product linkage envisaged in the Notification. It only calls for a computation of the clearances of all goods which fell under 15A(1) CET as it stood during the base period and similarly a computation of the excess clearances for all the goods which fell under 15A(1) CET as it stood during the incentive period.

8. In the above view of the matter, the appeals succeed. The concerned Central Excise authorities shall grant consequential relief to the appellants within 4 months from the date of communication of this order.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //