9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (2) TMI 184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order per : K.L. Rekhi, Member (T)]. - The appellants are aggrieved by the two demands for differential central excise duty served on them. The lower authorities have held that the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of exemption Notification No. 119/75-C.E., dated 30-4-1975 in respect of the barley malt prepared by them out of customer s barley and hence the said barley malt was t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R 1979 SC 621-sales-tax case of M/s. Motilal Padamdat Sugar Mills). 3. Subsequently, the appellants placed on record a copy of the Delhi High Court judgment dated 11-7-1985 in Civil Writ No, 36 of 1981- M/s. Bar-malt (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Others - in which the High Court has held that barley malt was completely exempt from duty under notification No. 55/75-C.E., dated 1-3-1975, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Assistant Collector, a lower functionary, was not empowered to hold out any promise which could attract the rule of promissory estoppel, that there could be no promise which was not in accordance with law. That for the past period the Appellate Collector had already given substantial relief to the appellants on the ground of time bar and that on the substantive issue as to what constituted a fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his product. In the circumstances, in keeping with the practice of this Tribunal, we are bound to follow the Delhi High Court judgment. It may be that the present appellants are not asking for full exemption. But in view of the Delhi High Court having declared the product fully free from duty, we are at a loss to understand how the demands for any differential duty can be sustained against the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
