9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (10) TMI 233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the case are given below : The respondents manufacture polyester staple fibre of various deniers and tops, which are classified under T.I. 18 of Central Excise Tariff. They submitted an application in the prescribed form for credit of an amount of Rs. 15,42,348/- under Rule 56AA(2) (Annexure C) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which authorises Collector to permit in writing a manufacturer of excisable goods to take credit of duty paid on such excisable goods, equal to an amount determined in accordance with the provisions of a notification issued under sub-rule (1) of Rule 56-AA (Annexure D). Respondents later revised this amount to Rs. 17,63,494.87. The Assistant Collector on the basis of the records available in his office, held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... actory had remained closed. The Assistant Collector rejected the various judgments relied upon by the respondents on the ground that either the full text of the judgment was not supplied or that they were not relevant and that he was justified in interpreting the words remained closed by the plain meaning that the factory was to be treated as closed, when there was no production, vide his order C.No. V/18/30/4/83, dated 10-1-1984 (Annexure F). 3. The Respondent-Company appealed to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras. On a plain reading of Notification No. 283/82, the Collector held that what was to be compared was the quantity cleared during the base period with the quantity cleared during the incentive period; that there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iod as a whole. Support is lent to this view when we read Explanation, 1(a) to Condition (vii) of the notification when a factory remained closed for not more than 15 days being allowed concession ignoring the period of closure completely. When we turn to the notification for production incentive issued round about the same period for sugar, we find that the schedule to the notification specifically sets out that, the description of sugar which is entitled to the concession is that produced during the period commencing on the 1st day of May, 1982 and ending with the 30th September, 1982 which is in excess of the average production of the corresponding period of the preceding three sugar years (emphasis supplied); a feature of the notificati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal held that the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) was maintainable and dismissed the appeal of the applicants. 4. The applicants have filed this application for reference for referring the question enumerated in Annexure B. We have heard both the parties to the Reference Application and discuss below the questions raised by the applicants. Regarding Question No. 1 : - This is broadly framed for purposes of reference and in effect tries to seek to place the whole order of the Tribunal for purposes of review before the Court, not a procedure envisaged under Section 35G of the Act and hence is not referable. Regarding Question No. 4 : - It is a settled law that the purpose of a notification is irrelevant in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
