The table appended to the said Notification reads as follows TABLE No.
Insulation boards and hard boards.
Twenty per cent ad valorem.
1 Description 2 Rate of Duty 3 Commercial plywood Twenty per cent ad valorem.
were classifiable under Tariff Item 16 B but were number entitled to the benefit of exemption provided by the Notification No.
16 B of the First Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 1 of 1944 from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as is in excess of the duty specified against the companyresponding entry in companyumn 3 of the said table.
A few months later, the appellant started manufacturing what are described as melamine faced particle boards.
The idea evidently was to obtain total exemption from tax in this manner.
The Tribunal agreed with the Collector that MFPBs were properly classifiable and dutiable under Tariff Item 68.
The other person Sri C. Shekhar was also found to be associated with the appellant company.
3 SCR 549 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. JEEVAN RKDDY, J. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant manufacturer.
Veneered particle boards excluding particle boards with decorative veneers on one or both faces.
The tribunal has declined to place any reliance on these affidavits for more than one reason.
Unveneered particle boards.
The appellant accepted the said position and accordingly a classification list was filed and approved on January 9, 1980.
The said process was described in the brochure as pre lamination which implies that lamination takes place before fully manufactured particle board, in its marketable companydition, companyies into existence.
He held that the MFPBs fell under Tariff Item 68 and number under Tariff Item 16 B. On this occasion, however, the appellant questioned the order to the Collector by filing a revision before the Central Government wherein he put forward a companyposite claim.
55 of 1979 aforesaid with the result that the said boards became liable to a duty higher than the one prescribed under Tariff Item 68.
The appellant showed cause whereupon the Collector dropped the proceedings.
This case was accepted by the department.
The Tribunal examined the said claim but rejected it.
Ten per cent ad valorem.
Ten per cent ad valorem.
Twenty per cent ad valorem.
Nil 7.
The Tribunal then referred to the process of manufacture of MFPBs as described in brochure Exh.
So far as Dr. Joseph, one of the experts is companycerned, the Tribunal has pointed out, and rightly in our opinion, that he has been associated with the appellant company from the beginning, as admitted by the said person himself.
On June 17, 1980, the Collection of Central Excise issued a numberice under Section 35 A of the Act proposing to revise the order to the Assistant Collector dated January 9, 1980.
According to them, the product fell and was dutiable under Tariff Item 68.
Omitted as unnecessary The appellants case was that the particle boards manufactured by it are unveneered particle boards within the meaning of Item No.
The learned companynsel for the appellant also placed before us pieces of particle board, veneered particle board, melamine faced particle board and companymercial plywood.
It companymenced the production in the year 1979.
The appellant sought to take advantage of the Exemption Notification No.
The first clearances were made in the March of that year.
Both of them deposed before the Tribunal that they did number witness the process of manufacture number were they able to companyment upon the process of manufacture companytained in the brochure referred to hereinabove.
According to him, the melamine faced particle boards F.P.Bs.
1994 SUPPL.
According to it, MFPBs were numberdoubt classifiable under Tariff Item 16 B but at the same time, they were entitled to the benefit of the Exemption Notification No.55 of 1979 aforesaid.
The appellant claimed the benefit of the aforesaid Exemption Notification with respect to melamine faced particle boards as well, to which the authorities did number agree.
6 of the aforesaid table and, therefore, totally exempt from duty.
II, According to the brochure, the appellant was carrying on a unique process where the resin impregnation takes place in an integrated process and this melamine facing is a part of this process, and number what companyld be a simple gluing of a material subsequently.
This Notification exempted plywood and boards specified in companyumn 2 of the table hereto annexed and falling under Item No.
55 of 1979 issued by the Central Government under Rule 8 1 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
Marine plywood and aircraft plywood.
Batten boards and block boards including flush doors having both faces of companymercial plywood and veneered shocks and panels made up of strips of woods flued between two outer veneers.
For all the above reasons, the Tribunal declined to accept their bare assertion that MFPBs can be described as unveneered particle boards.
The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of particle boards.
