TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (11) TMI 278
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion No. 52/82 was issued on 28-2-1982 and the goods manufactured by the appellants were required to pay duty @ 8% ad valorem. On 22-4-1982, another Notification (No. 149/82) was issued by which the goods were again exempted from payment of duty. 2. The dispute arose in respect of goods cleared by appellants during the period 28-2-1982 to 21-4-1982. When a show cause notice was issued to the appellants demanding duty and threatening other action, the appellants pleaded that they were not liable to duty or any other action under the Central Excise Law. Following three reasons were given in support of their pleas:- (a) clearances made on 22-4-1982 have been taken for working out the amount of demand. From 22-4-1982 the said goods are exe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....embic Chemical Works Company Limited, Baroda v. Union of India & Others (reported in 1979 E.L.T. J 258); 2. Mis. Kesar Sugar Works v. Union of India & Others (Allahabad High Court) reported in 1983 E.L.T. 285; and 3. The Union of India & Others v. The Elphinstone Spinning & Weaving Mills Company Limited (reported in 1978 E.L.T. J 680). The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) accepted only a minor ground about the amount of demand, but otherwise rejected the appeal. Hence the present appeal before us. 4. Shri Gopal Prasad, the learned Consultant for the appellants, reiterated the two grounds raised before the Appellate Collector, namely, that the goods which were manufactured at the time when there was total exemption could not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the Revenue in the matter of M/s. Castrol Limited, Calcutta v. Collector of Central Excise, Patna (supra) - 1985 (21) E.L.T. 333 (Tribunal) and reiterated the same. 8. We have considered the arguments of both side. Insofar as the classification of the goods is concerned, it is obvious that these goods are made of plastic. It may be true that the grips are used on motor vehicles only but being plastic articles they were classified under 15A(2) and whatever else there may be, they did not cease to be articles manufactured out of plastic. It appears that the goods were classified under 15A(2) after certain proceedings by the Assistant Collector. The appellants acquiesced in the classification till 28-2-82 and it appears from what was stat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....E.L.T. 680) (Bombay), dated 20-1-1978; (v) Alembic Chemical Works Company Ltd. v. Union of India [1979 (4)E.L.T. 258] (Gujarat) (1979 Cen-Cus 477D), dated 18-7-1975; (vi) Kesar Sugar Works v. Union of India [1983 (12)E.L.T. 285 (All.)] (1983 ECR 139) (Allahabad); (vii) Shree Synthetics Ltd. v. Union of India[1982 (10)E.L.T. 97] (Madhya Pradesh), dated 16-1-1982. 10. The facts of the present case are the same as in the one before the Tribunal. The facts are also similar to the case considered by the Supreme Court and referred to in paragraph 9 of the CEGAT judgment in the case of M/s. Kirloskar Brothers Limited, Dewas v. Union of India [1978(2) E.L.T. J 690]. 11. We see no reason to differ from the ratio of this judgment. We n....