CCE Vs. CROWN INDUSTRIES AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M /s. Victor Industries, M/s. Crown Industries and M/s. Leo Electric & Battery Co. were engaged in the manufacture of dry battery cells. From the starting material viz. zinc callots, the three assessees made zinc cans. This operation resulted in creation of zinc scrap. The assessees requested for permission to clear such scrap to certain job workers who would convert this scrap into starting material viz. Zinc callots and return the callots to the assessee's factories. This permission was granted to all the three assessees on or about 1.6.1992. These letters reiterated terms and conditions as set out in Rule 57F(2). In identically worded letters all dated 1.3.1993, the permission was withdrawn and directions were made for clearance of the scrap in terms of Rule 57F(4). Against the letters of withdrawal, all the three appellants filed appeals before the Collector (Appeals). Two of the assessees viz. M/s. Crown Industries and M/s. Leo Electric and Battery Co. requested for speaking orders from the Assistant Collector. On the Assistant Collector having issued such orders, these two assessees filed two more appeals, although the grounds were the same. The Collector (Appeals) dealt with all the 5 appeals in the single impugned order. In his order, he observed that scrap arising during the manufacture of final products could not be sent to the job workers factory under Rule 57F(2), that the goods manufactured by job workers were essentially inputs and neither intermediate nor final products; that the permission for such removal earlier given by the Board stood withdrawn. In spite of this conviction, he followed the Judgment of the CEGAT in the case of Chloride Industries and allowed the appeals. Against this order, the revenue filed an appeal on 11.7.1994. When this appeal came up for hearing on 19.6.1998, the department was directed to obtain instructions regarding filing of separate appeals. This was because of the appeal filed by the revenue covered all the three assessees, the revenue filed 5 supplementary appeals and also applications for condonation of delay which were taken up today for disposal. Shri Sheth, the ld. advocate for the respondents submits that what is before the Bench for consideration today are not supplementary appeals and that they should be considered as fresh appeals and as such should be dismissed as barred by limitation.

(2.) SHRI V.K. Suman, the ld. DR on the other hand states that this is only a procedural error whereby a joint appeal was filed against the three assessees and that this defect was cured by filing supplementary appeals.

(3.) HOWEVER , there should have been only three appeals from the three assessees. Two of the assessees viz. M/s. Leo Electric & Battery Co. and M/s. Crown Industries have filed one appeal each against the original communications as well as the subsequent speaking orders in adjudication. Therefore the duplicate appeals are to be treated as misplaced and are required to be disposed of as such. Similarly, appeal No. E/2703/98 -Bom filed by M/s. Victor Industries is also superfluous and requires dismissal as such. This fact will be reflected in the final order.