TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (8) TMI 223
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Respondents. [Order per : S.S. Kang, Member (J)]. - The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 16-9-1996 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). 2. Brief facts of case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of spray dried silica. During the manufacture of spray dried silica, the appellants are getting sodium silicate at intermediate ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the benefit of Notification 23/55-C.E. 3. As the final product, spray dried silica, was held to be entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 23/55-C.E., a show cause notice was issued to the appellants demanding duty on 2903.35 MTs on the intermediate product i.e. sodium silicate used in the manufacture of spray dried silica on the ground that since the final product, spray dried silica, has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in respect of spray dried silica which contained only 344.15 MTs of sodium silicate. He submits that for the amount, that portion for which refund claim was made, the appellants are not disputing the demand of duty. 5.  He submits that the appellants only contesting the demand of duty on sodium silicate, which is used in the manufacture of spray dried silica, which was cleared on payment of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of appropriate duty. During this period, they availed the benefit of Notification 217/86-C.E. in respect of intermediate product i.e. sodium silicate which was consumed captively. The claim of the appellants that the final product i.e. spray dried silica is entitled for the benefit of Notification 23/55-C.E. was accepted by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). Thereafter, the appellants f....