Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Collector Of C. Ex. vs Solar Minerals And Chemicals on 1 December, 1995
Equivalent citations: 1996(82)ELT240(TRI-DEL)
ORDER G.P. Agarwal, Member (J)
1. These are five appeals by the Revenue involving interpretation of Notification No. 222/77-CE., dated 15-7-1977.
2. Brief facts of the case are - A. Nos. E/2603 to 2605/89-D : In these appeals M/s. S.N. Synthesis and M/s. Scientific Compounds and Processes are manufacturers of 'Sabena' Scouring Powder. These units availed the benefit of exemption Notification No. 222/77-CE., dated 15-7-1977 declaring that no powder is used for the manufacture of the said scouring powders. However, during 1988 it was noticed that the said two units are cleaning 'Sabena Powder' in 90 Kgs. gunny bags to M/s. Solar Minerals and Chemicals, M/s. Sabena Agencies and M/s. Veera & Veera - all the three respondents herein, and theSe bulk pack of clearing powders are repacked into 300 gms. retail packs and for such packing power is used. Since, according to the Department, repacking of detergent powders/scouring powders in retail packs amount to process incidental and ancillary for completion of manufacturing process, instructions were issued by the Superintendent to the respondents to furnish the particulars for issue of show cause notice. However, it appears that before the issuance of the show cause notice, the respondents went on appeal before the Collector (Appeals) against the said direction issued by the Range Superintendent. The Collector (Appeals) allowed the appeals, inter alia, observing that the goods in question were manufactured without the aid of power : that the goods are sent to repacking units on sale and not on behalf of the manufacturers for repacking: and that the Superintendent has no jurisdiction to hold under identical circumstances that Sabena Powder was manufactured with the aid of power. On these facts, he held that the respondents rightly availed the benefit of said exemption Notification No. 333/77-C.E. Hence the present appeals by the Revenue.
A. Nos. E/2606 & 2607/89-C : In these appeals also the basic facts are the same except that the present respondents are the manufacturer of Scouring Powder in bulk.
3. When these appeals were taken up for hearing, Shri Sanjeev and Shri A.K. Madan, learned SDRs, appeared on behalf of the Revenue. None for the respondents. However, they have requested for the transfer of the appeals to the outlying Bench of this Tribunal at Madras, which was not found acceptable by the Bench, since the present appeals are of 1989. Accordingly, we heard the learned SDRs and perused the record.
4. Shri A.K. Madan, learned SDR, submitted that in these appeals, the appeals filed by the respondents before the Collector (Appeals) were not maintainable, since neither the Show Cause Notice nor any adjudication order was passed by the competent authorities. In other words, his submission was that, against the direction or asking the appellants to furnish the details before the issuance of the Show Cause Notice cannot be the subject matter of the appeal before the Collector (Appeals).
5. We have considered the submissions and found substance in it. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned orders-in-appeal and since no show cause notice was issued in the instant case, the question of adjudication or readjudication or de novo adjudication does not arise at this stage. However, the Department is free to proceed, according to law, if so advised.
6. In the result, all these appeals are allowed.