Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2001 (2) TMI 362

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e of this oil is ethylene oxide. The process of manufacture involves conversion of ethylene oxide into ethoxylate and its subsequent conversion into anti static oil. The initial conversion of ethylene oxide into ethoxylate was carried out at the appellant's factory at Panoli. 2. In March, 1996, the factory at Silvasa intimated Assistant Commissioner that it had made temporary arrangement at its factory at Panoli to partially manufacture organic surface active agent and organic chemicals falling under headings 3420.90 and 2905.90 of the Tariff on its behalf. It asked for necessary permission. The annexures to this application gave details of the raw materials, and had indicated that Panoli factory would manufacture the intermediate p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....factory at Silvasa. Ethoxylate manufactured at Panoli also not been sent to the factory at Silvasa. He therefore confirmed the proposal for duty, and imposed penalties on the company and the director. Hence these two appeals. 4. The contention of the common counsel for the two appellants is simple. He agrees that the Silvasa factory never received from its factory at Panoli ethylene oxide. This chemical was received directly by the Panoli factory. He however contends that ethoxylate manufactured at Panoli is cleared only to the factory at Silvasa. The Tribunal, in its decision in Lupin Labotatoreis Ltd. v. CCE - 1994 (71) E.L.T. 914 has found just such a situation as the present one covered by the provisions of the Rules, and said t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sions of Rule 57F(3) will not be available, because ethylene oxide was not received first in the Silvasa factory. 6. That fact cannot justify denial of the facility under this rule. The Tribunal held that the provisions of Rule 57F(2) would be available to Lupin Laboratories Ltd. for consignments of Pencillin G which was sent from the place of importation directly to its factory at Ankleshwar, where they made into intermediate product 7ADCA, which was sent to the factory at Mandideep for manufacture of Cephalexin. The factual situation here is identical. Here too the factory at Silvasa informed the department that ethoxylate would be received directly at Panoli. The fact that the departmental representative emphasises that payment w....