1983 (3) TMI 180

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d 17-1-1983 in this case. Shri Pattekar has argued on behalf of the Addl. Collector of Central Excise Bombay-11 that both D.B.S.B. and modified acid slurry are finished products commercially known to the market by their respective names. Since they are different products, the levy of duty on both, even though classifiable under Item 15-AA is correct. He has drawn our attention to Rules 9 and 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 as modified, in this behalf to sustain his contention. He has sought to rely on the ratio of the Bombay High Court in the case of Indian Vegetable Product Co. Ltd. v. Union of India as reproduced in R.K. Jain's Excise Guide, Page 64. As per this judgment, intermediate product is liable to duty even if the same is not....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ddl. Collector's appeal is time-barred. He has ventured to suggest that this appeal has been filed for delaying the payment of the amount of refund due to M/s. Hico Products (P) Ltd. under the order of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise and he has requested the Tribunal to direct the Collector to sanction the refund within a specified time limit. 2.  We have examined the submissions on both the sides. Before we go into the merits of the case, we have to consider the plea of M/s. Hico Products Pvt. Ltd. that the appeal preferred by the Addl. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II is time-barred under Section 35-B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. Examining this contention it is seen that the Appellate Collector's order ....