9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1986 (1) TMI 219 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
Determining entitlement to duty exemption under Notification 226/77 as amended by Notification 323/77 for handloom fabrics processed by the appellant. Analysis: 1. The appeal was transferred to the Tribunal from the Central Government against an order by the Collector of Central Excise. The appellant, an independent processor, processed fabrics with power and availed a duty exemption under notifications 135/77-C.E. and 226/77. An amendment by Notification 323/77 required approval as an independent processor for duty concession. The appellant continued availing the concession without approval, leading to a demand notice for differential duty. 2. The main issue was whether the appellant was entitled to the duty exemption during the material period without the required approval as an independent processor. The appellant argued that the approval requirement post-amendment necessitated a time-lag for application and approval, citing industry actions and precedents. The Departmental Representative contended that approval was mandatory before availing the exemption, and lower authorities' decisions were correct. 3. The Tribunal observed that the appellant could not have obtained approval before the amendment's effective date. The appellant initiated approval procedures post-amendment, with approvals granted later. The Tribunal noted industry efforts to comply with approval requirements, but the approval was received after the material period. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument that approval could relate back to the amendment date. 4. The Tribunal analyzed precedents cited by the appellant, including Nayak Associates and Hercules Tyre cases, finding them inapplicable to the present case. The Tribunal distinguished the Satya Narain Aggarwal case, emphasizing the approval as a prerequisite for duty concession. The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, concluding that the appellant was not entitled to the exemption during the material period, and dismissed the appeal.
|
