2003 (3) TMI 101

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Civil Appeal Nos. 11441-11442/95. This was obviously for the reason that the question which was involved in those appeals was pressed into service in these appeals also. Be that as it may, Mr. Anoop Chaudhary, the learned senior counsel appearing for the Revenue, opened his case disputing that these appeals are covered by the decision in Civil Appeals No. 11441-11442/95, (Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi v. Universal Electrical Industries & Anr.), dated March 11, 20031. 3.We may note a few relevant facts of this case. The assessee is manufacturing plywood veneer, panel flush door, panel doors, veneer timber board and block boards. It is also manufacturing glue, UF resins and wood veneer, which are used as inputs for the manufactur....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the following comment of the Assistant Collector : "The point raised by the assessee in their defence reply regarding Explanation-III of the Notification No. 175/86 is not understandable. The said explanation is for computing the aggregate value of clearances of final product for the purpose of Notification No. 175/86 which is not at all the point of dispute in this case." 4.Thus expressing, the Assistant Collector confirmed the demand. On appeal to the Collector, Central Excise and Customs (Appeals), by the assessee, it was pointed out that the exemption under Notification No. 217/86 for the intermediate products manufactured by the assessee namely, glue, UF resin and wood veneer etc. used in the manufacture of final products, namely....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tification. For purposes of computing the aggregate value, both Explanation II and Explanation III have to be read together and the clearance value of the inputs will have to be excluded. This is what the assessee stated in its reply which was not appreciated either by the Assistant Collector or the Collector (Appeals). Even if the claim of exemption by the assessee in regard to the inputs is based on Notification No. 217/86 and it is not entitled to the same, it hardly makes any difference as the inputs fall within the meaning of 'specified goods' in Notification No. 175/86. Therefore, their clearance value ought to have been excluded while arriving at the aggregate value for the purposes of Notification No. 175/86. 8.It is true that, r....