2008 (8) TMI 329

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the learned SDR, represented the Revenue. 3. We heard both sides. 4. The appellants are the manufacturers of pesticides. Revenue proceeded against them by issue of Show Cause Notice dated 19-11-1998 raising the demands in respect of four issues. The Joint Commissioner in his O-I-O No. 7/1999, dated 14-5-2007 dropped the demands proposed on tow issues and confirmed the demands in respect of other two issues. The Commissioner (Appeals) Chennai in O-I-O No. 92/2000, dated 15-9-2000 has confirmed the order of the Original Authority and therefore the appellants have come before this Tribunal for relief. 5. The first issue is regarding the classification of de-mineralized water. The period of demand is from 30-9-1995 to 3-3-1998. The amo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ater and water similar purity); liquid air (whether or not rare gases have been removed); compressed air; amalgams, other than amalgams of precious metals -Distilled or conductivity water and water of similar purity: 28.51.11 Used within the factory of production 28.51.19 Other Liquid air (whether or not any fraction has been removed) 28.51.21 Used within the factory of production 28.51.29 Other 28.51.30 Compressed air 28.51.90 Other 7.1 She stated that the product manufactured by the appellant would definitely fall under the above category in terms of the HSN notes. 8. Further, the learned Advocate relied on the following Circulars of the Board: (a) C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 84/84/94-CX.I, dat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ended that the impugned product is highly volatile. The appellant has not contested the demand of service to Serial Nos. 2 and 4 of the above table. However, with regard to Serial Nos.1, 3 and 5 the loss is due to transit/storage /handling. The learned Advocate relied on the following decisions: (a) 1998 (104) E.L.T. 382 (Tri.) - Neera Enterprises v. CCE, Chandigarh (b) 2000 (125) E.L.T. 578 (Tri.) - CCE, Aurangabad v. Sipta Coated Steels Ltd. (c) 2000 (116) E.L.T 583 (Tri.) - Bhoruka Textites Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore. 10.1 In the above decisions, it was held that there could be no direction for reversal of credit in respect of input loss arising out of dryage, storage, evaporation, etc. It was further held that weighment errors w....