ORDER
Lajja Ram, Member (T)
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Shantinath Silk Industries, the Order-in-Appeal dated 21.2.1992 passed by the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay is under challenge. The matter relates to the duty liability on the Nickel Perforated Rotary Cylinder Screen. The appellants were engaged in the processing of hand made fabrics and were using different printing machines including Rotary Printing Machines. They were receiving duty paid Nickel Perforated Cylinder and were subjecting them to various processes as indicated in the impugned order-in-appeal. The appellants had claimed that as a result of the processes undertaken by them on the Nickel Perforated Cylinders received from outside, no new product emerged and as the goods were captively consumed they were eligible to the benefit of Notification No. 65/86 dated 10.2.1986. The Collector, Central Excise (Appeals) observed that benefit of Notification No. 64/86-CE was only available from 25.7.1991 when the amending Notification No. 67/91-CE was issued on 25.7.1991.
2. When the matter was called, none appeared for the appellants. The notice for today’s heading was issued on 23.4.1999 and had been duly received by the appellants on 28.4.1999 as per acknowledgement card on record. We find that it is an old matter in which the show cause notices had been issued during the year 1988-89. We accordingly take up the matter for disposal on merits after hearing Shri S. Nunthuk, learned JDR.
3. Shri S. Nunthuk, learned Departmental Representative referred to the impugned order-in-appeal and submitted that the period involved was from January, 1988 to December, 1990 and the show cause notices had been issued within the normal period of limitation. The appellants had referred to the Notification No. 67/91-CE dated 25.7.1991 in support of their contention that Nickel Perforated Rotary Cylinder Screen were eligible for the benefit of exemption from payment of Central Excise duty. The learned Departmental Representative had submitted that the period involved is prior to the date of this amending Notification and that prior to 25.7.1991 no exemption was available to the Nickel Perforated Rotary Cylinder Screen and that the matter had been correctly discussed by the adjudicating and the appellate authorities.
4. He had also referred to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Bombay v. Perfect Machine Tools Co. Private Limited in support of his contention that as no specific exemption was available to the Nickel Perforated Rotary Cylinder Screen during the period in dispute, subsequent exemption will not apply to the past period.
5. We find that the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals) had directed the Assistant Collector, Central Excise to check up from his records whether Classification List No. 77/88 dated 1.10.1988 was approved in the first instance and if so it should be construed that the show cause notice dated 4.7.1988 and the notices of the later dates are related to the Classification List No. 77/88 only. We are not concerned with this part of the order.
6. Learned Collector, Central Excise had also discussed that the assessee had cleared the goods without getting their classification lists approved and the Department was justified in issuing the show cause notices.
7. No penalty had been imposed in these proceedings.
8. Taking into account all the relevant facts and circumstances, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Collector, Central Excise (Appeals). We do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is rejected.
(Pronounced and dictated in the open court).