9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (12) TMI 83 - AT - Central ExciseApplication for Rectification of Mistake - Entitlement to the benefit of Notification No. 202/88 Held that - The appellant was not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 202/88-C.E., clearances made from April, 1993 to February, 1994 will be required to be added to the aggregate value of clearances under Notification No. 1/93 - value of clearances during the financial year (1992-93) was within the exemption limit, still appellants were required to pay duty during the year 1993-94 after exemption limit got exhausted - There is nothing on record that appellants during the period April, 1993 to February, 1994 were having value of clearances less than the prescribed exemption limit - in the ROM application also the facts have not been brought on record by the appellants - there is no mistake apparent from the records and accordingly ROM Applications filed by the appellants are dismissed Decided against Assessee.
Issues: Interpretation of Notification No. 202/88-C.E. and Notification No. 63/91-C.E., entitlement to exemption, applicability of Notification No. 44/93-C.E., calculation of duty based on value of clearances.
Analysis: 1. The appellants contended that they were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 202/88-C.E. due to the wording changes in Notification No. 63/91-C.E. They argued that even after the amendment, goods from ship breaking materials were exempt under Notification No. 202/88-C.E. They claimed that the value of clearances should not be added under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. The appellants emphasized the importance of considering the value of clearances from the preceding financial year, 1992-93. They sought rectification of the order passed by the Bench. 2. The respondent countered that the goods were not eligible for exemption under Notification 202/88-C.E. after 28-2-1993 when Notification No. 44/93-C.E. was issued. They argued that the ship breaking materials were not entitled to the exemption post the issuance of Notification No. 44/93-C.E. 3. The Tribunal observed that the amendment by Notification No. 63/91-C.E. deleted certain words from the Explanation to Notification No. 202/88-C.E. The amended definition clarified that stocks of inputs recognized as non-duty paid were not eligible for exemption. Additionally, Notification No. 44/93-C.E. fully exempted goods and materials of Chapter 72 obtained by breaking up of ships, boats, and other structures. 4. The Tribunal highlighted that Notification No. 44/93-C.E. was an exemption notification under the Central Excise Act, categorizing ship breaking materials of Chapter 72 as non-duty paid. The Tribunal emphasized that goods chargeable to nil rate of duty were distinct, pertaining to situations where the duty leviable was at a nil rate as per the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument regarding the continued eligibility under Notification No. 202/88-C.E. post the amendment. 5. The Tribunal determined that the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 202/88-C.E. Consequently, clearances made from April 1993 to February 1994 needed to be added to the aggregate value of clearances under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. The Tribunal upheld the duty confirmation based on previous decisions and dismissed the ROM applications, concluding that no mistake was apparent from the records.
|
