AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (4) TMI 106
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, Classification Lists were duly approved by the proper officer after making necessary verifications. 2.Apart from the above products, the appellants are also manufacturing Tin Containers which fall under Sub-Heading : 7310.00. A part of the said Tin Containers was being used by the appellants captively for packing of Valve Grease Paste, Metal Polish and Silicon Polish. In respect of this part of Metal Containers, benefit of Notification No. 217/86-CE was being claimed by them. Wherever the said Tin Containers were not captively used for packing of exempted final products, the appellants paid the duty on the said Tin Containers at the applicable rates under Sub-Heading : 7310.00. The other two products i.e. Glass Cleaner and Wax Polish, were being packed by the appellants in Poly-bottles purchased by them from outside manufacturers. 3.The Commissioner vide his impugned Order has denied the benefit of Notification No. 222/77-CE to the appellants' products on the ground that containers and/or poly-bottles used for packing the goods, were manufactured with the aid of power and as such, the condition of the said Notification does not stand fulfilled. Accordingly, demand of duty ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of his above submission, he refers to the following decisions :- (i) 1999 (111) E.L.T. 498 [CCE v. Garware Wall Ropes Ltd.]; (ii) 1999 (110) E.L.T. 919 [CCE v. Jackson Engineer (P) Ltd.]; (iii) 2000 (125) E.L.T. 646 (T) = 1997 (22) RLT 678 [Dassani Electric (P) Ltd. v. CCE]; (iv) 1998 (102) E.L.T. 722 [Hi-Tech Polypack v. C.C.E.]; (v) 1998 (99) E.L.T. 241 [CCE v. Mysore Spinning & Mfg. Mills]; (vi) 1996 (84) E.L.T. 299 (T) = 1996 (14) RLT 357 [Kumar Brothers Electrica Fittings & Equipments (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E.]; (vii) 1997 (73) ECR 796 [Kemp & Co. Ltd. v. C.C.E.]; (viii) 1994 (69) E.L.T. 748 [CCE v. Bombay Foods (P) Ltd.]; (ix) 1996 (86) E.L.T. 604 (T) = 1996 (12) RLT 771 [Eastern Metals and Ferro Alloys v. C.C.E.]; (x) 1999 (107) E.L.T. 190 [Kanti Prasad Tibrewala v. C.C.E.]; (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i Bagaria, learned Advocate further concluded that apart from the merits of the case, the demand is also barred by limitation, inasmuch as the show cause notice issued on 31-3-1994 relates to the period from 1-4-1989 to 10-1-1994. As such, apart from few months, the entire period is beyond the normal period of six months, as provided under Section 11A of the Act. The goods in question were being manufactured in the same manner since several years. During these years, the documents and records relating to manufacture of the goods were examined, scrutinised and verified by the Department on several occasions. The Classification Lists filed with the Department were all along approved. In these circumstances, there was no ground available with the Department to invoke the larger period. The reasoning of the Commissioner that the relevant facts required to be disclosed by the appellants were not mentioned in the Classification Lists, is untenable inasmuch as whatever was required to be disclosed in the format of the Classification Lists, were duly disclosed by the appellants. In support of his submission on the issue of time-bar, he refers to the various decisions of the Honourable Supr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Notifications which were not due to them Accordingly, he prays for rejection of the appeal. 13. We have considered the submissions made from both sides. 13.1As regards the availability of Notification No. 222/77-CE dated 15-7-1977 to the five items in question, we find that admittedly, no power has been used by the appellants in the manufacture of the above items. The benefit is denied to the appellants on the ground that power has been used in the manufacture of Poly-bottles and Tin Containers. The question which arise for our consideration is as to whether the use of power in the manufacture of Tin Containers or in the manufacture of Poly-bottles can be considered as use of power in the manufacture of appellants' products classifiable under Heading : 34.05. 13.2As regards the Poly-bottles, the same are not being manufactured by the appellants and are being purchased by them from other manufacturers. As such, the use of power in the manufacture of Poly-bottles by other manufacturers, which ultimately served as packing materials for the appellants' products cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be termed as use of power by the appellants in the manufacture of their fin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iod 1-4-1989 to 10-1-1994. From the impugned Order of the Commissioner, we find that though the point of limitation was raised before the Commissioner, but he has discussed the same in the context of availability of Notification No. 222/77. The benefit of the said Notification having already been allowed by us, we are not expressing any opinion on the point of limitation. The impugned Order does not specifically discuss the limitation aspect in respect of extension of benefit of the Notification No.230/86 to "K.K.Thinners". It is not clear from the facts on record as to whether the fact of use of power-driven pump for transferring alcohol from the storage tankers to M.S. Drums was ever disclosed to the Revenue or not. As such, while holding against the appellants on the availability of Notification No. 230/86 in respect of "Thinners", we remand the matter to the Commissioner for deciding the issue on limitation in respect of "Thinners" only. 13.5As regards the demand of duty of Rs. 25,538.24, in respect of the sample-testing in the appellants' factory, we agree with the submission made by the learned Advocate that since the testing of samples is technical necessity for quality c....