INDIAN TUBE CO LTD Vs. COLLECTOR OF C EX
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
K. Sankararaman, Member (T) -
(1.) THE Indian Tube Company Limited have filed this appeal aggrieved with the order-in-appeal dated 25-6-1985 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta rejecting their appeal against the order dated. 16-2-1985 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Jamshedpur. By his said order, the Assistant Collector had held that the credit of duty taken under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules could not be utilised towards payment of duty on Bell ends and Front ends and Boring and Turnings arising in the course of manufacture of seamless pipes and tubes. He relied upon the provisions of Rule 56A (3) (vi) (a) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, for such a view. He had observed that these items i.e. Bell ends and Front ends and Turnings and Borings are neither finished goods for manufacture of which the duty paid materials like steel Blooms/Bars were permitted to be brought into the factory nor are they the duty paid material or component parts as such. THE Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta upheld the above decision of the Assistant Collector when it was challenged in an appeal filed before him holding that the action of the Assistant Collector in denying the utilisation of the credit earned in the proforma credit account for clearance of products other than seamless pipes and tubes for the manufacture of which they had been allowed to work under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was correct in view of the provisions in Rule 56A (3) (vi) (a) of the said Rules. Hence this appeal.
(2.) When the appeal was posted for hearing before this Bench on 31-10-1990, the appellants sent a reply stating that in a similar matter for a different period the Bench had passed an order transferring the case to a Special Bench, New Delhi and enclosed a photocopy of the said order dated 15-4-1987. They submitted that the present appeal may also be transferred to a Special Bench. If this is not agreed to, they requested that another date may be fixed.
As the Bench felt that as the issue involved was whether the proforma credit taken could be utilised for payment of duty on the waste products arising in the manufacture of the main products for the manufacture of which the duty paid materials had been permitted to be brought into the factory and as no matter regarding rate of duty or valuation was involved it was felt, with due respect to the Bench for the earlier decision referred to by the appellants, that the appeal was for this Bench to decide. Accordingly, the appeal was posted for hearing on 23-1-1991.
(3.) WHEN the appeal came up for hearing, Shri N. Mookherjee, learned Counsel for the appellants and Shri S.P. Katyan, Production Controller of the appellants represented them. It was clarified by them in reply to a query from the Bench that the transferred appeal has not been decided. They agreed that the appeal falls within the competence of this Bench.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.