TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (8) TMI 181
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....13-9-1988, Shri N.C. Chakraborty, authorised representative argued for the appellants whereas due to some communication gap, it appears, the name of Shri K.M. Lakhotia has been indicated instead of Shri N.C. Chakraborty. This point has also been reiterated by Shri N.C. Chakraborty while arguing on the ROM application before us. In the relevant column "present for the appellant" of the order sheet dated 13-9-1988 which was placed before the Bench hearing the appeal, the name of "Shri K.M. Lakhotia, consultant" was shown by the Court Master. In the circumstances, the name of Shri K.M. Lakhotia appeared in the Tribunal's Order instead of the name of Shri N.C. Chakraborty. This is a mistake apparent on record and is required to be rectified by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dress oral arguments on these case laws. In the said typed note, vide item 6 thereof, it was mentioned that Rule 3(2)(d) of the Drawback Rules, 1971 treated Catalyst as raw material. This being the position, we are inclined to add a paragraph in the impugned order. 3. In paragraph 2(k) of the ROM application the applicants have stated that the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta passed the order-in-appeal without application of mind and this contention will find support from the fact that he placed Nickel Catalyst in the category of capital goods and this fact was also stressed in E.A.-3 Form without any effect. During the oral arguments before the Bench on 13-9-1988 this point was not discussed by Shri Chakraborty. As this p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. The other submissions made in these paragraphs are in the nature of appellants' contention pleading for the benefit of Notification No. 201/79-C.E. as amended by Notification No. 105/82-C.E., dated 28-2-1982. In this context, we are to observe that the impugned order of the Tribunal is dated 16-9-1988 and therefore, there was no question of considering the Tribunal's decision in M/s Kothari Industrial Corporation [1988 (18) ECR 344] as it was brought to the notice of the Tribunal in October, 1988. In the impugned order, the Tribunal discussed the reason for following the earlier decision in Kashmir Vanaspati case in preference to the decision of S.R.B., reported in 1988 (14) ECR 129 in the case of Tata Oil Mills. In this regard, there is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (iii) 1986 (25) E.L.T. 297 (Tribunal) 1985 ECR 1536 (Cegat) (Decided on 25-6-1985) Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad v. M/s. The Sir-silk Limited, Sirpur-Kaghaznagar (iv) 1985 ECR 862 (Cegat-Madras) Sandhur Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore (Decided on 21-3-1984) (v) 1980 (6) E.L.T. 538 (Guj.) (Decided on 4-7-1980) Suhrid Giegy Ltd., Ahmedabad v. Union of India and Others The cases reported in 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1263 (Cegat), 1985 ECR 1536 (Cegat) relate to Notification No. 201/79-C.E. before it was amended by Notification No. 105/82-C.E. dated 28-2-1982. These decisions are not, therefore, applicable to the present case as it relates to post-amendment period. The decision reported in 1985 ....