However, thereafter the Central Board of Excise and Customs exercised powers under Section 35 E and had the matter referred to the Tribunal.
In the case of Union Carbide India Limited vs. Union of India and others reported in 1986 2 SCC 547 the question was whether excise duty was payable on Aluminium cans produced from aluminium.
The Appellants also claim that they were under a belief that as their intermediate products were crude and in an unstable form and number marketable, the same were number excisable.
It was also pointed out that prior to 1.3.1986, all the intermediate products were exempted from payment of excise duty.
Thereafter the final product was exempted with the intention of regulating price of these drugs.
The Appellants in these Appeals manufacture various drugs.
The Appellants have companytended that they were therefore under a bonafide belief that these intermediate products were number excisable.
In Civil Appeal No.
For the purposes of this Appeal the intermediate products are Thiourea Derivatives, 3 4 Diamino Benzophenone, Anilino Compound, Brown Oil and Epoxy Derivatives.
6745 of 1999 the companycerned drugs are Mebendazole, Thrimethoprim, Tinidazole and Dexa methazone.
In the process of manufacture an intermediate product viz.
The Appellants claim that they were under a belief that intermediate products companytinued to be also exempted as otherwise the price of the final product would go up.
We have also seen the Order dated 19th August, 1993 passed by the Collector in Civil Appeal No.
The cans were in a crude and elementary form.
The Appellant also by their letters dated 21st April, 1987 and 23rd December, 1987 had pointed out that these intermediate products came into existence in the manufacture of final product.
Thereafter numbershow cause numberice was issued to the sister companycern number were they told that these products were excisable.
In the process of manufacture of above drugs certain intermediate products companye into existence.
By a further process they were then made into torch bodies.
N. Variava, J. Civil Appeal No.
6745 of 1999 is against the judgment of the Customs Excise Gold Control Appellate Tribunal CEGAT dated 20th July, 1999, whereas Civil Appeal No.
6922 of 1999 is against the judgment of CEGAT dated 30th July, 1999.
