2002 (11) TMI 124 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 103/61 regarding exemption for synthetic organic dyestuff.
2. Compliance with Rule 56A for availing benefits under Notification No. 103/61.
3. Applicability of Notification No. 104/79 and its impact on availing credit for countervailing duty.
4. Legal validity of the amendments made to Rule 56A and its effect on Notification No. 103/61.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Interpretation of Notification No. 103/61
The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing synthetic organic dyestuff, claimed exemption under Notification No. 103/61 for countervailing duty paid on imported intermediates used in the manufacturing process. The notification allowed credit for duty paid on raw materials. However, an amendment required following the procedure under Rule 56A to avail of this exemption.

Issue 2: Compliance with Rule 56A
The petitioner applied for benefits under Notification No. 103/61 but was later informed that the credit for imported intermediates was not admissible. The petitioner challenged this decision, arguing that they had followed the procedure as per the notification and had availed substantial benefits, which were now being revoked.

Issue 3: Applicability of Notification No. 104/79
The respondents cited Notification No. 104/79, which restricted credit for countervailing duty on imported intermediates under Tariff Item No. 68. They contended that this restriction, coupled with the requirements of Rule 56A, limited the petitioner's eligibility for credit under Notification No. 103/61.

Issue 4: Legal Validity of Rule 56A Amendments
The court examined the amendments to Rule 56A and their impact on Notification No. 103/61. It held that the second proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 56A, inserted by Notification No. 104/79, was crucial in determining the eligibility for credit of countervailing duty. The court emphasized that compliance with the procedural aspects of Rule 56A was essential to claim benefits under Notification No. 103/61.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition, ruling that the petitioner failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 56A and the relevant notifications. The court upheld the validity of the amendments to Rule 56A and emphasized the importance of following the prescribed procedures to avail of duty exemptions and credits.