1979 (6) TMI 40 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Central Excise Rules regarding exemption for aluminium products.
2. Validity of the date from which exemption should be granted.
3. Application of exemption rules to goods under different sub-items of Tariff Item No. 27.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around a Private Limited Company engaged in manufacturing Aluminium collapsible Tubes seeking exemption under Central Excise Rules for imported aluminium products. The Company applied for permission under Rule 56A for exemption on aluminium falling under specific sub-items of Item No. 27 of the Central Excise and Salt Act. Initially granted permission effective from the application date, the Company later imported goods under a different sub-item, leading to a demand notice for short-levied amount.

The Company challenged the order granting permission from the date of application for the new sub-item, arguing it should have been from the date of the original notification. The Court dismissed this contention, emphasizing the necessity of following the prescribed procedure for exemption applications. The Court held that the mere publication of a notification does not automatically grant importation rights; a formal application and permission are essential. The Court rejected the Company's claim of acting bona fide based on prior permissions, stating that exemption eligibility is contingent on complying with the application process.

The Court upheld the Government's decision to grant permission from the application date for the new sub-item, rejecting the Company's plea for exemption from the notification date. The judgment highlights the importance of adhering to procedural requirements for claiming exemptions under Central Excise Rules. The Court found the Government's actions rational and denied the Company relief, emphasizing the need for strict adherence to the application process outlined in Rule 56A.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the Company's petition, discharged the rule with no costs, and rejected a request for a stay on the order. The Company was directed to proceed with the recovery of the short-levied amount from the Bank guarantee provided earlier, denying any further relief to the Company.