COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. ALUMINIUM CABLES AND CONDUCTORS U P P LTD
LAWS(CE)-1986-11-2
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on November 11,1986

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

M. Santhanam, Member (J) - (1.)REVIEW show cause notice issued under Section 37 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, by the Government of India has been transferred to the Tribunal and is being treated as an appeal.
(2.)The review by the Government is against the orders of the Appellate Collector, Central Excise, Calcutta dated 31-7-1981. The entire dispute relates to the demands raised by the Superintendent in the RT 12's for the months of April, 1975 to July, 1975. The respondents showed payment of duty cleared on electrical grade aluminium manufactured by them at 30% ad valorem availing the benefit of Notification 42/75 dated 1-3-1975 as amended by Notification 111/75 dated 30-4-1975. The demand for duty amounting to Rs. 16,34,250/- was confirmed by the Assistant Collector in his order dated 6-1-1978. The Assistant Collector was of the view that the respondents had not satisfied the conditions of the Notification. The appeal was filed to the Appellate Collector. Before the Appellate Collector (Appeals) respondents produced six documents regarding the allotment of EC Grade Aluminium Ingots for the manufacture of high tension Aluminium Cables. The Appellate Collector was of the view that though the respondents had not filed classification list. On the issue of Notification 42/75, in view of the allotment orders, he extended the benefit of doubt and allowed the appeal. He was of the view that the respondents were entitled to the concessional rate of duty under Notification 42/75.
In the review show cause the Government are tentatively of the view that inasmuch as the burden of proof was on the respondents to show that they were governed by the provisions of the Aluminium (Control) Order, the respondents have failed to discharge the onus. When the respondents were not projecting the correct picture and the facts, mere production of some correspondence would hot appear to be sufficient to hold that the-respondents had satisfied all clauses of the orders.

(3.)SHRI H.L. Verma, SDR submitted that the onus was on the respondents to establish that they were eligible for the concessional rate of duty. He drew our attention to the documents filed by the respondents before the Appellate Collector and urged that most of them were regarding the allotment of raw material. He argued that Notification 42/75 required the manufacturers to establish that the aluminium was required by the Central Government, to be supplied and distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Aluminium (Control) Order, 1970. He contended that in the absence of such proof or declaration as contemplated under the Notification the Appellate Collector was not justified in allowing the appeal.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.