Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Collector Of Central Excise vs Gulshan Sugar And Chemicals (P) Ltd. on 14 October, 1987
Equivalent citations: 1988(16)ECC179, 1988ECR100(TRI.-DELHI), 1988(33)ELT123(TRI-DEL)
ORDER
1. The issue arising for decision in this appeal by Revenue is eligibility of coated precipitated chalk to benefit of exemption under Notification No. 23/55-C.E., dated 29-4-1955 as subsequently amended.
2. Notice of the date of hearing was issued to the respondents and their Advocate by registered AD post on 28-8-1987. None is present for the respondents today' nor has any communication been received from them. We, therefore, proceed to dispose of the appeal in absence of the respondents ex parte. We have therefore, heard Smt. J.K. Chander, Departmental Representative for the Appellants-Collector of Central Excise, Meerut.
3. Our attention has been drawn to a decision of the Tribunal in Collector of Central Excise, Meerut v. Searsole Chemicals Ltd. [1985 (21) ELT 343 (Tribunal)]. In this decision, the Tribunal held that the expression precipitated chalk includes coated precipitated chalk for the purpose of Notification No. 23/55, dated 19-4-1955, and is a mineral exempt from payment of duty. Srnt. Chander in view of this Tribunal decision, does not dispute this position but urges that exemption under the notification is available only when minerals under Serial No. 1 of the notification are employed. Smt. Chander submitted that even if coated precipitated chalk be held mineral within the meaning of notification, there is noevidence as to end use of the material as specified in the notification. On going through the Tribunal decision, which reads as under :-
"If chalk includes, as it does in the notification precipitated chalk, we are of the view that "coated precipitated chalk" is covered by expression "Precipitated chalk" because both are recognised in literature as mineral fillet's."
Besides the above findings of the Tribunal, the notification has no condition precedent as to end use. We do not think that long after the materials have been used, we should call upon the respondents to adduce evidence, of end use. Besides, this point though raised during arguments is not urged in the memo of appeal. Considering all this, we are not inclined at this stage to call upon the respondents to adduce evidence of end use before the Assistant Collector of Central Excise.
4. Considering the foregoing, the appeal is dismissed.