KASHMIR VANASPATI LTD Vs. COLLECTOR OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two appeals filed by the above appellants arising from two separate orders -in -appeal but originating from the issue of the same SCN dated 6 -10 -1986. Ld. Counsel submitted that when the matter came up before the Tribunal on the earlier occasion by way of Appeal No. 4190/91 -D the Tribunal had by Order dated 28 -11 -1991 remanded the case to the original authority to adjudicate the matter on the question on merits as well as on the question of time bar. Pursuant to the said remand order the Assistant Collector had passed the oider -in -original dated 30 -6 -1993 confirming a duty demand of Rs. 2,72,860.96 instead of Rs. 3,80,003.65 as demanded in the SCN. Assistant Collector had rejected the present appellants' contention about time bar. Collector (Appeals) had by order dated 31 -12 -1993 remanded the matter again to the Assistant Collector directing him to give specific findings on the question of time bar. Thereafter the Assistant Collector had passed another order dated 19 -4 -1995 by which he again rejected the present appellants' plea of time bar. Ld. Counsel had submitted before us that the Assistant Collector had while rejecting the plea of time bar virtually repeated the findings given by Assistant Collector in the first adjudication order dated 21 -2 -1989 and since the said findings had been set aside by the Collector (Appeals) in the earlier proceedings, the reasoning given by the Assistant Collector in the de novo proceedings were unsustainable in law and therefore has to be set aside. Inasmuch as the Commissioner (Appeals) in his subsequent order dated 15 -2 -1996, (impugned order) has confirmed the Assistant Collector's order on the issue of time bar, ld. Counsel submitted that the Commissioner's (Appeals) order suffers from the same illegality. He, therefore, pleaded for the setting aside of the impugned order and for allowing the appeal on the ground of time bar.

(2.) LD . Counsel submitted that there were two more issues involved in the present appeals, namely, the demand of duty for the month of April, 1986 which was not time barred. This demand relating to the month of April, 1986 was not being pressed. The other issue related to the claim of the Deptt. that the assessment was provisional. Ld. Counsel submitted that the authorities below has given the finding that the assessment for the months March and April, 1986 were only provisional and therefore no question of time bar would arise. In this connection, he referred to the Assistant Collector's observation in the order -in -original that the appellants had executed a Bond. The ld. Counsel, submitted that the appellants had refuted this claim of the Department and no document in support of the Department's case had been placed on record.

(3.) LD . JDR, Shri Sumit Das appearing for the Respondent Collector submitted that the issue of time bar raised by the appellants related to the actual date of receipt of the demand -cum -SCN issued to the appellants by the Superintendent, Central Excise, Jammu asking the present appellants to show cause why an amount of Rs. 2,41,543.96 should not be demanded from the appellants on the ground that the appellants had wrongly availed the rebate under Notification No. 115/86 during the month of March, 1986 without complying with the conditions of the said Notification. Notification No. 115/86 gave rebate to manufacturers of vegetable products falling under sub -heading 1504.00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 being such vegetable products made from (i) indigenous cotton seed oil, (ii) any one of the minor oils specified in the Table to the Notification Order or (iii) a mixture of any one of the oils mentioned in the Notification on the basis of rates mentioned in the said Notification. JDR referred to the SCN dated 6 -10 -1986 and stated that the appellants had not produced the quantity of vegetable products with the composition of cotton oil or rice bran oil during March, 1986 entitling them to claim the rebate admissible under Notification No. 115/86.