2000 (7) TMI 158

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nst the appellant-firm, M/s. Usha Beltron Limited and also a penalty of Rs. 1.00 lakh was imposed. Penalty of Rs. 5,000.00 each has been imposed respectively on S/Shri G.D. Saini, Vice-President and B.K. Biyani, Managing Director, of M/s. Usha Beltron Limited. 3Arguing on the appeals, Shri S.K. Bagaria, learned. Advocate submitted that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Jelly Filled Underground Telecommunication Cables. For manufacture of their said product, they procured one of their raw materials, 'Cable Filling Compound' duly packed in drums. After utilisation of the said raw material, the empty drums are sold by them. He submitted that duty has been confirmed by the Commissioner of Central Excise on the ground that duri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bsp;      1998 (99) E.L.T. 234 (Castrol India Limited v. CCE) - In this decision, it was held that merely emptying of drums of their contents does not amount to manufacture and that even after taking out the inputs, the drums remained drums and there was no scope to apply Rule 57F(4) in respect of clearances of such empty drums or to demand any duty thereon even if the assessee had taken Modvat credit of the duty paid on the contents received in such drums; (ii)        1998 (104) E.L.T. 807 (Supra Alloys & Allied Products Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE) - In this matter, the assessee was receiving the inputs, namely, resins packed in drums/barrels. After the inputs were taken out, the empty c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ned Order, the Commissioner has relied on a decision of the Tribunal in the case of West Coast Industrial Gases Limited v. CCE, [1996 (83) E.L.T. 358]. It is submitted that the said decision was subsequently recalled by the Hon'ble Tribunal as reported in 1998 (104) E.L.T. 478 on the ground of there being mistakes apparent from the record in the said Order reported in 1996 (83) E.L.T. 358. The said Appeal was, thereafter, ultimately allowed by the Hon'ble Tribunal by final Order No. 1821/98, dated 16-9-98, reported in 1999 (108) E.L.T. 383 by following the decision in the case of IOL Limited (Supra). In the circumstances, he said, the only decision relied upon by the Commissioner has since been itself recalled and the appeal has been, there....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....T. 705(T) = 1998 (25) RLT 919 which stands confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision. As regards the Revenue's appeal, he submitted that the same is only on two grounds. Firstly that the Commissioner while confirming the demand of duty should not have deducted the amount of Central Excise Duty demanded by the said Order for determination of the assessable value of the containers in question and he should not have allowed the benefit of Notification No. 181/88-C.E., dated 13-5-88. He submitted that the first issue is clearly covered by the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in the case of Srichakra Tyres Limited v. CCE reported in 1999 (108) E.L.T. 361 (T) = 1999 (32) RLT 1. He, further, submitted that the Commissioner has, in any circ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e manufacturers of the containers in question by merely taking out the compound out of the same. The said containers continued to remain containers on which duty must have been paid by the manufacturers of the same at the time of clearance of the containers from the factory of the manufacturers. If the said containers are of durable nature and are repeatedly being used for filling up of the various products, they cannot be held liable to payment of duty at each and every stage in the hands of the assessees who receive the inputs duly filled in such containers. The reasoning of Shri Roy that the cost of these containers must have been added into the cost of compound filled in with, is not relatable to the issue. The appellants have taken the....