TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (10) TMI 142
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... their case would be covered by Notification No. 97/84-C.E. dated 23-4-1984 issued by the Central Government under Section 11C of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and that a copy of the said notification was filed by them on 9-12-1985 bringing to the attention of the Tribunal the said notification but that without the same being taken into account the order dated, 11-12-1985 had been passed. According to them there has, therefore, been an error apparent from the record in the order, dated 11-12-1985 and therefore the said error is to be rectified. 2. We have heard Shri P.N. Avasthi, Advocate for the applicants/ appellants and Shri Vineet Kumar for the Deptt. 3. In this case arguments in the appeal had been heard on 14-10-19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appeal. In the circumstances the contention raised by the appellants as evidenced by an application filed by them for that purpose was on the records but the appeal had been disposed of without reference to that contention. In that sense we feel that there was an error apparent from the record and that in view of that error the order already issued needs to be reconsidered. 5. But then the next question is whether even taking into consideration the contention raised on the basis of Notification No. 97/84 the order finally issued would require any modification. The notification read as follows : "In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 11C of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) the Central Government, be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uld apply only in cases where printing had been done already before the sheets are supplied by the customers to the manufacturers of the tin containers or such printed sheets are purchased from the market by the manufacturers of tin containers. In the present instance the printing is got done by the appellants after receipt of the tin sheets, though the actual printing is done elsewhere and not within the premises of the appellants. We may refer to the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Standard Fire Works Industries [1985 (5) E.T.R. 549] which dealt with a similar situation though not under the same notification. The notification relevant in that appeal was Notification No. 179/73. Considering the terms of that notification it w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case was done on the appellants' account and is relatable to the manufacture of the tins being a process incidental or preparatory to a manufacture of the tins without the aid of power. The fact however remains that the printing had been arranged to be done by a person who is other than the licensee. A plain reading of the notification shows that so long as the printing or lacquering of tin sheets had been done by others with aid of power while tins were manufactured without the aid of power, the benefit of the notification will be available to the manufacturer of the tins. This notification had been issued in exceptional circumstances under Section 11C of Excises and Salt Act, for the benefit of manufacturers of the tin containers to take ....