Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
Bars
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

1995 (7) TMI 218

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....GLPT), Laminating Base Tissue (LBT), Release Base Tissue (RBT), Coloured Release Base Tissue (CRBT), Special Packaging Tissue Paper (SPT), Packaging Tissue Paper (PT), Bleached White Tissue Paper (BWT) and Tracing Base Tissue Paper (TBT) for which classification was claimed by them under sub-heading 4805.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They also are said to have claimed and availed of concessions of Central Excise duty on clearances of these products effected during March, 1986 in terms of Notification No. 25/84-C.E., dated 1-3-1984 and during the period 1-4-1986 to 20-3-1990 in terms of Notification No. 138/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986. 2. The Preventive Staff of the Central Excise Collectorate, Chandigarh visited the factory premises on 10-11-1989. Samples of eight varieties of packaging paper mentioned above were drawn and later got tested from the Chemical Examiner, Central Revenue Control Laboratory, New Delhi, who in his test analysis report is said to have opined that : "the sample is in the form of white translucent, glossy and glazed sheet of paper" in respect of four varieties namely Glazed Packaging Tissue (GLPT-40), Laminating Base Tissue (LBT-40), Release....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt of 5% to 15%. In view of this, the department thought that the four varieties of packaging paper, namely, GLPT-40, LBT-40, RBT-70 and CRBT-60 manufactured during the period from 1-3-1986 to 20-3-1990 were both translucent and glazed and thus these varieties of paper were correctly classifiable under sub-heading 4806.20 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On 18-12-1990, the Preventive Staff took into possession three super-calendering registers maintained by the appellants pertaining to the period 28-11-1988 to 27-4-1990. Expert opinion from the Central Pulp and Paper Research Institute was also sought on data contained in these registers by sending six representative pages of these registers. These registers were maintained by the appellants in their own laboratory for quality control as stated by Shri N.K. Vasu, Dy. Manager in his statement dated 18-12-1990. In its report dated 7-1-1991, the said Institute opined that all the varieties of pages, data in respect of which had been examined by them as contained in the representative pages of super-calendering registers were translucent. From the above, the department alleged that the four varieties of paper na....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pan of time and requested for two months time for filing the reply. In response to their letter, the appellants were informed that it was not feasible to give time of two months to file the reply and they were informed that they could appear for personal hearing on 6-12-1991 or on 12-12-1991 as may be convenient to them. The appellant again wrote a letter dated 4-12-1991, by which they again pleaded for extension of time by two months to enable them to obtain expert legal advise in the matter. In reply the department informed them that their request for adjournment could not be acceded to and if they desire they would appear for personal hearing on 12-12-1991. In response, the appellants by their letter dated 12-12-1991 submitted the followings : "(i) that the principles of natural justice require that reasonable opportunity of making submissions against charges levelled in the show cause notice and thereupon of cross-examining witnesses; if any, and ultimately of making submissions in personal hearing, be given. (ii) that the show cause notice dated 1-4-1991 is based on serious allegations and involves controversial facts. As show cause notice relates to a period of fi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....id period. He has observed that it is no doubt true that there are no internal test reports recovered for the period 1-3-1986 to 12-6-1987 and it is also true that for this period no super-calendering register has been recovered by the Excise Officers and that for CRBT varieties, the internal reports do not show opacity range and the variety is also not shown in the super-calendering registers recovered. He has held to the extent that there is no direct test data either for the pre-super calendering stage or for the super- calendering stage. Further, he has held that the facts and circumstances of the whole case clearly suggest that even in the absence of direct test data, the inference cannot be drawn otherwise. He has held that the nature of specific available evidence on record as mentioned above is such that it reveals the fact as it always existed during the period in question, and therefore, it clearly proves that the four varieties of paper manufactured and cleared during this period could not have been and were not other than glazed translucent paper. He has held that firstly, the varieties manufactured were all along the same. Secondly, the statement of Chief Paper Maker o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent of the paper has to be viewed in the light of Chapter 2 of sub-heading 48.05 and the opinion of the experts were required to be decided in this regard. Therefore, the ld. Collector having proceeded to close the case without giving them a full opportunity to defend the case in a matter of this nature was not at all justified. In this context, he relied on the ratio of the following cases :- 1.  M/s. Raja Imports & Exports v. Collector of Customs - 1991 (56) E.L.T. 220 (Para 5). 2.  M/s. Pfeda Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise - 1994 (74) E.L.T. 958. 3.  M/s. Golden Cable Co. v. Collector of Central Excise - 1994 (71) E.L.T. 955 (Paras 4 & 5). 4.  Makhin Singh v. Ind. of Central Excise - 1962 AIR 112 MP. 5.  Mencka Gandhi v. Union of India - AIR 1978 SC 597 (Paras 56, 58, 59 & 63). 6.  Gupta & Co. v. Union of India - AIR 1968 Delhi 64 para 5. 7.  M/s. Madhu Milan Syntex Pvt. & Another v. Union of India & Another 1985 (19) E.L.T. 329 paras 34 & 35. 8.  M/s. Mahendra Electricals Ltd. v. Union of India & Another - 1986 (26) E.L.T. 882. 8. Ld. DR defending the order submitted that there was no violation of any of....