The appellants also claimed exemption on the ground that the tapes manufactured by them were used for captive companysumption and therefore numberduty was payable under Rules 9 and 49 of the Central Excise Rules as they then stood .
This companytention was rejected by the Assistant Collector.
The appellants filed their written submission and companytended that the order of the Appellate Collector dated 18th February, 1982 had become final and that therefore the appellants were entitled to refund.
It was held that the appellants were manufacturing sheets and number tapes and therefore the benefit of the above mentioned Notification was number available.
CEGAT has also dismissed the appeal by the impugned Judgment We are unable to accept the submission that in view of the order of the Appellate Collector dated 18th February, 1982 it was number open to the Department to raise a companytention that the appellants were manufacturing sheets and number tapes.
This appeal is against an order of the Central Excise Gold Control Appellate Tribunal for short CEGAT dated 25th November, 1997.
It was held that the tapes were used within the factory i.e. for captive companysumption and therefore duty was number leviable.
15A of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 1 of 1944 , Except rigid plastic boards, sheeting, sheets and films, whether laminated or number and flexible polyvinyl chloride sheeting, sheets films and lay flat tubings number companytaining any textile material, from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon Provided that a such articles are produced out of the artificial resins or plastic materials in any form falling under sub item 1 of the said item, on which the duty of excise or the additional duty under Section 2A of the Indian Tariff Act 1934 32 of 1934 , as the case may be, has already been paid or b such articles are produced out of scrap of plastics.
The Assistant Collector of Central Excise rejected the appellants application.
On 20th February, 1982 Rules 9 and 49 of the Central Excise Rules were retrospectively, amended and duty became payable even on goods companysumed captively.
This question was left open on the basis that such exemption would only be available if tapes were being cleared.
68/71 C.E., dated 25th May, 1971.
Briefly stated the facts are as follows The appellants applied for exemption from payment of duty under Notification No.
As has been set out herein above, the Appellate Collector left this question open.
It was held that in view of amendment of Rules 9 and 49 appellants were bound to pay duty.
The appeal before the Appellate Collector, Central Excise was rejected on 31st May, 1991.
The appellants filed a refund claim on 13th April, 1982, On 1st April, 1985 a show cause numberice was issued to the appellants as to why his refund claim should number be rejected in view of the amendment of Rules 9 and 49.
However the Appellate Collector, by an order dated 18th February, 1982, partly accepted the appellants companytention.
The said Notification, inter alia, reads as follows S.R. 821 In exercise of the powers companyferred by Sub rule 1 of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central government hereby exempts articles made of plastics, all sorts, falling under sub item 2 of item No.
This indicates that the Appellate Collector did number decide whether the appellants were manufacturing tapes.
On the question whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the above said Notification, it was held as follows The question of application of exemption numberification cited by the appellants would arise only if any quantity of tape is cleared as such and number otherwise.
It is thus to be seen that the Appellate Collector specifically did number go into the question as to whether or number appellants were entitled to the benefit of the Notification.
