1988 (2) TMI 216

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ay Rubber Industries (respondents in this case), both on the issue of limitation and on the merits of the dispute. In so far as the merits were concerned, the Collector (Appeals) found that masticated rubber made by the respondents out of natural rubber by the process of mastication was not a product different from natural rubber and that, therefore, masticated rubber was not excisable under the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The appellant-Collector has challenged this finding as well as the finding on the issue of limitation. 2. We have heard Smt. D. Saxena, S.D.R., for the appellant-Collector and Shri Joseph Kodianthara, Advocate, for the respondents. 3. At the outset, the counsel for the respondents broug....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ourt had considered this definition and the report of the Chemical Examiner to the effect that the sample of masticated rubber was composed mainly of natural rubber and that no added ingredient was detected. It was on this basis that the Court held that the process of mastication did not result in a product different from natural rubber. In the present matter, it is seen from the impugned Order-in-Appeal that the masticated rubber produced by the respondents was obtained as a result of mastication of raw rubber but without addition of chemicals so as to obtain a new product. The respondents' contention that the process of mastication undertaken by them was nothing but breaking up of raw rubber had not been disputed or controverted by the de....