TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (1) TMI 221
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....odavari Chemicals manufactured Sodium Silicate falling under Item 14BB of the Central Excise Tariff in their factory at 37 - Industrial Extension Area, Gangyal, Jammu Tawi. During the financial year 1982-83, the value of Sodium Silicate cleared by them exceeded Rs. 25 lakhs and hence they were not entitled to any exemption from Central Excise duly on Sodium Silicate during the year 1983-84 in terms of Notification No. 83/83-C.E., dated 1-3-1983, as amended. M/s. Godavari Chemicals ceased to function from May, 1983 and the aforesaid industrial shed was handed over to the appellants by the Estate Manager, J&K S. S. I. Development Corporation on 30-7-1983. The appellants manufactured and cleared from the factory Sodium Silicate during the peri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs of the Additional Collector by these appeals. 3. Shri Lachman Dev, learned Consultant for the appellants, has argued that paragraph 3 of the Notification No. 83/83-CE covers the appellants' case. This notification is in respect of a manufacturer. In support of his arguments, he has relied on the following decisions :- (i) 1985 (22) E.L.T. 751 (Kar.) = 1985 (6) E.C.C. 219 (Karnataka) - Shyam Sunder U. Nichani v. Asstt. Collector of C. Excise and Customs And Another. (ii) 1985 (20) E.L.T. 424 (Tri.) = 1985 (5) E.T.R. 419 (Tribunal) -Jaideep Corporation, Hubli v. Collector of Central Excise, Baroda. (iii) 1981 (8) E.L.T. 128 (Bom.) - Jenson and Nicholson (India) Ltd. v. Union of India and Others. 4. The second argument of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r point argued for the appellants is that 3 lakhs Ltrs. of Sodium Silicate were supplied to M/s. Hindustan Levers Limited. The reduced rate of duty at 5% ad valorem under Notification No. 148/81-CE, dated 1-8-1981 was applicable to this quantity. There is no bar to avail of this exemption although the prescribed procedure was not followed. On this point, Shri Lachman Dev has relied on this Tribunal decision reported in 1986 (24) E.L.T. 567 (Tribunal) in the case of Annasaheb Bapu Bhagate v. Collector of C. Ex., Bombay. 6. Shri Chandrasekaran, learned SDR has argued that paragraph-2 of the Notification No. 83/83-CE says as follows :- "2. Nothing contained in this notification shall apply if the aggregate value of clearances of all exci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e notification. The appellants were not, therefore, entitled to duty-free clearances of Sodium Silicate under the aforesaid notification during the period from 1-8-1983 to 31-1-1984. The learned Consultant for the appellants has cited three judgments, namely, those reported in 1985 (22) E.L.T. 751 (Kar.) = 1985 (6) E.C.C. 219 (Karnataka), 1985 (5) E.T.R. 419 (Tribunal) and 1981 (8) E.L.T. 128 (Bom.). These judgments do not help the case of the appellants. In the judgment reported in 1985 (22) E.L.T. 751 (Kar.) = 1985 (6) E.C.C. 219 Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has held that what is important for the purpose of granting exemption under Notification No. 80/80-CE, dated 19-6-1980 is the aggregate value of clearance from "any one factory" durin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty relating to the period from 8-12-1983 to 31-1-1984 is clearly time-barred under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act as the show cause notice proposing the recovery of duty was issued on 1-8-1984, i.e. after expiry of six months from the date of clearances of the goods. The demand for duty raised in the show cause notice dated 25-5-1984 is time-barred for the period prior to 27-11-1983, being more than six months old. The appellants have stated that the show cause notice was received by them on 28-5-1984. This averment stands unrebutted. The demand for duty should, therefore, be confined to the period 28-11-1983 to 28-5-1984. While calculating duty amount, the element of duty, if included in the price, should also be deduct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....could not be gauged by the Departmental officers in the absence of any information to the Department from the party in this regard". Even at the stage of appeals before us the appellants have not furnished any material to establish that the conditions of this notification were fulfilled by them. In ground No. 9 of their appeal No. E/1527/86-C, the appellants have stated that the entire quantity of Sodium Silicate was dispatched to M/s. Hindustan Levers Limited for its use in the manufacture of detergents and hence duty leviable was to the extent of 5% ad valorem under Notification No. 148/81, dated 1-8-1981 instead of 15% as charged by the Department. This ground of appeal has not been substantiated by them by adducing necessary evidence to....