TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1988 (7) TMI 186
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oning waste and other waste of cellulosic origin have clearly been incorporated in Notification No. 53/72-C.E., dated 17th March, 1972 as amended by Notification No. 277/77-C.E., dated 12th August, 1977 and made chargeable to duty of Central Excise (Basic) at the rate of Re. 1/- per kg., additional duty, at the rate of 15% basic Excise duty, and special duty of excise at the rate of 10% of basic excise duty. When the matter went up in appeal, the Collector (Appeals) upheld the order-in-original on the ground that Notification No. 172/72, dated 24th July, 1972 refers to only waste rayon (hard waste) and that it was, therefore, not applicable to them, and the goods were specifically held to have been covered under Notification No. 53/72, dated 17.3.1972. It is against this order that the appellants have come up in appeal before us. 2. We have heard Shri S. K. Bagaria, Advocate on behalf of the appellants and Shri V.M. Doiphode, SDR for the Department. 3. The learned advocate submits that the goods in question are in the nature of waste which cannot be considered as manufactured goods. There is no manufacturing activity undertaken with the objective or intention of producing the sai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ament yarn any waste taking place after-treatment department and onwards that is after-treatment.......... waste, reeling waste, and coning waste, are hard-waste. 6. Responding the learned SDR sprang a surprise by pleading that the order of the Collector of Central Excise, merits to be set aside that the matter remanded for reconsideration of the issue of classification at the level of the Assistant Collector in view of the fact that the decision of the Collector (Appeals) was taken on the basis of a certificate filed by the appellants before him which was in the nature of additional evidence and the Department was not given an opportunity to explain their stand in regard to it. Shri Doiphode stated that cellulosic waste - all sorts are not mentioned in Item 18 at all, and therefore, they would be correctly classifiable under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. It is urged, therefore, that the correct classification of the goods would be under Item 68 of the CET. 7. Shri Doiphode cited the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Indian Vegetable Products Ltd. v. Union of India and Others -1985 (22) E.L.T. 406 (Bombay) to support his contention that since it was the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e. 14. As amended by Notifications No. 139/77, dated 18-3-1977 and 277/77-C.E., dated 12-8-1977, Notification No. 53/72, dated 17-3-1972 the Central Government partially exempted man-made fibre and filament yarn waste viz. godet waste, undersized cake waste, reeling and coning waste, wet waste, hard-waste, winder cut waste, spool cut waste and other wastes of cellulosic origin from so much of excise duty leviable thereon as was in excess of Re. 1/- per kg. 15. The appellants were filing classification lists from time to time claiming assessments under this notification and this was approved by the Central Excise authorities. It is in view of this position that from the Department's side the contention has been made that there would be an estoppel against the appellants now changing their stand and claiming either the benefit of Notification No. 172/72, dated 21st July, 1972 or urging that the goods are non-excisable. We must straight away reject this contention of the learned SDR. His reliance on the order of the Bombay High Court in the case of Indian Vegetable Products Ltd. v. Union of India and Others (supra) is misplaced. In the case of Indian Vegetable Products, the petition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Further he holds that Notification No. 172/72 referred to only waste yarn (hard-waste) and was, therefore, not applicable to the goods in question. He does not go into the issue at all whether these goods are in fact hard-waste, as claimed by the appellants. 17. We are constrained to observe that the order of the Collector (Appeals) suffers from want of application of mind to the various submissions made before him at length by the appellants. Departmental adjudicating as well as Appellate authorities must be enjoined to answer fully the points raised in the submissions made before them. It is only then that their orders can properly be considered as speaking orders which are an essential requirement of natural justice. It is only when this is done that it becomes evident that the adjudicating officer is clear about the issues involved and has examined them fully before coming to a decision. It also affords the Appellate authority, the facility of going through the grounds for such decision. Besides the assessee cannot be afforded the satisfaction of being fully heard until the orders passed deal with all the submissions made by him. 18. We do not have before us the reply to the....