1988 (2) TMI 329

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rocks. This appeal was heard along with other appeals on the same issue in the case of M/s. Singareni Collieries Ltd., in Appeal Nos. E/462/88-C, E/2577/87-C and the matter was argued by another advocate on behalf of the appellants in that case. 2. In the proceedings in this case, a show cause notice was issued on 7.4.1987 and the duty was demanded in respect of ANFO produced and captively consumed by the appellants for the period upto 9th February, 1987 as prepared explosives under Heading 3601.00 up to 9.2.1987 and Heading 3602.00 from 10.2.1987. They were alleged to have manufactured the goods without the Central Excise licence and cleared the same without payment of duty and observing the necessary Central Excise formalities as requi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt in this regard. He also pleaded that the goods were not marketable and these were prepared for immediate use by the appellants. He pleaded that it was for the Department to prove that the goods were marketable. The learned Consultant during the course of arguments, also pleaded that the appellants were eligible to benefit of Notification No. 281/86 dated 24.4.1986 but when it was pointed out to him that this claim was not made before the lower authorities and also this ground has not been taken in the grounds of appeal and that no basis has also been laid by the appellants in the facts of the case, he withdrew his plea stating that he does not press the same. 4. He pleaded that the part of the demand was barred by limitation as in the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he learned Departmental Representative for the Department pleaded that the ANFO was chargeable to duty as prepared explosive and in this connection, he cited the Tribunal Order No. 103/82 in the case of Kesoram Cement v. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad (sic.) 6. We observe that the facts and circumstances in the present case are similar to those in the case of Singareni Collieries dealt with in Appeal No. 462/88-C = 1988 (37) E.L.T. 361 (Tri). The pleas made are generally the same as in the case of Singareni Collieries. The merits of the case have been dealt with in detail in our order in that appeal. We have held in that case that the goods are chargeable to duty as prepared explosives for reasons set out in the order under Chapt....