Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Collector Of Central Excise vs Gujarat Alkalies And Chemicals Ltd. on 7 July, 1987
Equivalent citations: 1990(46)ELT65(TRI-DEL)
ORDER
S.D. Jha, Vice-President (J)
1. The impugned order had disposed of two appeals No. V-2(14B) 162/84 & V.2(14B) 462/84 filed by the respondents before him. Shri Shishir Kumar, learned S.D.R. representing the Appellant Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara informs us that to comply with the practice and procedure followed in the Tribunal one supplementary appeal was forwarded by post on 22-6-1987. Both the parties request that this supplementary appeal may also be disposed of with the main appeal No. E/2821/86-C. Enquiry was made from the Registry to trace this supplementary appeal but the attempt failed. Shri Shishir Kumar may, therefore, file another memo of appeal which be treated as a supplementary appeal to the main appeal and put up for hearing and disposal on 8-7-1987.
2. The present order is held relatable to appeal No. V-2(14B) 162/84 before the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay.
3. We have heard Shri Shishir Kumar, learned SDR for the appellant and Shri M.R. Paranjpe, Consultant for the Respondent and perused the available papers.
4. The issue for decision is eligibility of exemption Notification No. 201/79 dated 4-6-1979 in respect of Barium Carbonate used in the manufacture of Caustics Soda Lye.
5. Our attention has been drawn to a decision of this Tribunal in Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneshwar v. Jaishree Chemical Limited, Order No. 436/85-C, dated 6-6-1985. The decision covers the identical issue as in the present case. Both the parties agree that decision covers the issue involved in the present appeals. In the decision, the Tribunal held that Barium Carbonate would be eligible for benefit of exemption under Notification. Shri Shishir Kumar, to secure the rights of Revenue, urged the same grounds which were earlier urged before the Tribunal when it took the aforesaid decision so that the same, if necessary, could be agitated before the Supreme Court. So far as the Tribunal is concerned, there would appear no reason to differ with that decision. Following the decision, we dismiss the present appeal.
6. Cross-objection which is in the nature of comments to the ground of appeal is filed as incompetent.