TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (4) TMI 186
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t from them to decide the case on merits. Accordingly, we have proceeded to pass this order after hearing Smt. J.M.S. Sundaram, learned SDR for the Revenue. 3. In the written submissions filed by the respondent, it was submitted that calendering is not a process of manufacture, Since said process was done in other units and other units enjoyed exemption under respective notifications, the same benefit cannot be denied to the respondents under Notification No. 79/82-CE dated 28-2-1982. In the impugned order, the Collector (Appeals) has proceeded to decide the issue observing that only point of consideration is whether calendering is excisable process or not. He held that calendering is not manufacturing process and, accordingly, he s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the machines but without aid of the power or steam, in their factory premises, but they processed the man-made fabrics and sent it under AR-3As to outside factories for carrying out one of the finishing processes namely calendering with plain rollers and received it back into their factory and cleared it on payment of additional excise duty at the appropriate rate with the reduction of 40% of such rate in terms of proviso (i) of Notification No. 79/82-C.E., dated 28-2-1982. Since the process of calendering was carried out with the aid of the power to the goods in question, the reduced rate prescribed in the notification was denied by the Assistant Collector on the ground that the term of the notification is not applicable. The proviso i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd-result, would also be a process in or in relation to manufacture. Since the process of calendering was done with the aid of power and Notification specially refers to the fabrics processed with the machinery without the aid of power or steam, the Department was justified in denying the concession as prescribed under Notification No. 79/82. Since this view was well considered in the case of M/s. Amar Processors, as it was rightly argued by the Departmental Representative, following the ratio of the aforesaid decision, we set aside the impugned order and, accordingly, the appeal filed by the Department is hereby allowed. Sd/- (G.A. Brahma Deva) Dated : 10-5-1993 Member (J) 5. [Order per : S.K. Bhatnagar, Vice President]....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ses which were carried on within the respondents' factory were without the aid of power or steam. 10.I also find that the show cause notice is dated 19th December 1983 but relates to demand of duty for the period 1-3-1982 to 31-12-1982, that is for the period beyond the normal period of time of six months, but there is no charge of suppression or mis-statement of facts. On the contrary, the respondents have stated before the Assistant Collector that they were regularly filing Classification List claiming, inter alia, the benefit of Notification No. 79/82 and the same had been approved by the Assistant Collector and this fact has not been contradicted/denied or shown to be wrong. Therefore, the demand is also time-barred. 11.In view of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id of power or steam inasmuch as it has been calendered with the aid of power or steam even though in another factory, proviso (i) as mentioned in the learned Judicial Member's Order to notification 79/82 would not be applicable. 16.1 Hon'ble Vice President as a Technical Member of the Bench who heard the matter has, however held differently inasmuch as the process of calendering with the aid of power or steam is otherwise exempted by Notification 297/79-C.E., dated 24-11-1979. Learned Vice President has further held that in view of Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Mafatlal Fine Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [1989 (40) E.L.T. 218 (S.C)] process of calendering with plain rollers is not a manufacturing pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fect of other notifications, if otherwise applicable to the goods cannot be taken into account. All notifications are independent and it is a settled proposition of law that if more than one notifications are applicable to a product, the benefit of the same can be allowed to the goods." Therefore, if the process of calendering with plain rollers is otherwise exempt by virtue of Notification 297/79 dated 24-11-1979, benefit of the said notification cannot be denied to the respondents simply because Notification 79/82 has to be read on its own. If we accept the contention of the Revenue, it will lead to anomalies. It is admitted to the respondents that before calendering of the man-made fabric in another factory the respondents have not....