KAPURTHALA NORTHERN INDIA Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Kapurthala Northern India Tanners Ltd., is whether the benefit of Notification No. 2/94 -CE dated 1.3.94 is available in respect of Bone Tallow manufactured by them.

(2.) Shri K.K. Anand, Learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants, besides manufacturing leather goods, manufacture Bone tallow in respect of which they claimed exemption under Notification No. 2/94; that the Additional Commissioner under Adjudication Order No. 24/2001 dated 12.4.2001 confirmed the demand of duty denying the benefit of said notification and imposed penalty on the ground that Notification No. 2/94 exempts only Mutton Tallow and not Bone Tallow manufactured by them; that on appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) also rejected their appeal under the impugned Order. The learned Advocate, further, submitted that in trade parlance Bone Tallow and Mutton Tallow are understood to be the same commodity and affidavit of two persons were also produced to that effect; that in any case it is not a fit case of imposing penalty equivalent to the amount of duty as it involve the question of interpretation of notification.

(3.) Countering the arguments Shri R.C. Sankhla, learned DR reiterated thefindings as contained in the impugned Order and submitted that in commercial parlance as well as in common parlance mutton means flesh of sheep; that the notification specifically exempts mutton tallow and not any other tallow, and, therefore, the benefit of notification will not be available in respect of Bone Tallow. He relied upon the decision in the case of Novopan India v. CCE, Hyderabad, 1994 (73) ELT 769 (SC).