9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (11) TMI 191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emption under the said notification in respect of duty paid lime falling under Item 68 by following of a set off procedure under Rule 56A. The approval was given on 21-10-1977. In the meantime, Notification 178/77 dated 18-6-1977 had undergone an amendment by which set off of duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of excisable goods could be claimed subject to the condition that the appellants furnished a statement regarding quantity of inputs used in the manufacture of unit quantity of final product. The trade notice had been issued to that effect by the Collector of Central Excise, Guntur on 9th November, 1977. Subsequently on 19-3-1979, the appellants submitted an application to the Superintendent of Central Excise, Rajamundry claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uts which come to be used in manufacture of finished excisable goods to relieve the tax payers from the cumulative effect of Central Excise duty. 3. This order has been sustained by the lower Appellate authority namely the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay (Kemp. Hyderabad). 4. Learned Advocate Shri D.N. Kohli, appearing for the appellants has stressed that the notification does not state anywhere that the exemption has to be claimed only at the time of clearance and no refund of duty paid in excess of that payable in terms of that notification can be claimed. The application dated 19-3-1979 was not merely a declaration in terms of the said notification; but also an application for refund of duty inasmuch as the declaration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pproval accorded on 21-10-1977 is only in respect of lime and cannot be said to have been given for the other inputs referred to in the declaration dated 19-3-1977. 6. Replying to the points raised by the learned JDR, Shri D.N. Kohli has submitted that furnishing of the statement regarding use of inputs in the final product is nothing but a procedural condition and should, therefore, be ignored as long as the substantive condition of payment of duty on the inputs and their utilisation is established from the records and registers maintained by the appellants. He has again strongly relied upon 1985 ECR 1567. On the other point raised by the learned JDR, Shri Kohli pointed out that in any case in respect of lime, concession should be grante ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sent case. The issue before the Bench in this case is merely whether the application dated 10-3-1979 can be treated as a claim for refund or not; or was it merely a declaration in terms of the Notification No. 178/77. Facts available in the case before the Tribunal in the case of Andhra Pradesh Lightings Limited, Hyderabad mentioned supra are different from facts available in the present case. In view of the peculiar facts of this case, it is not necessary to go into the question as to whether the condition referred to in the Notification No. 178/77 is substantive or procedural. It is merely to be noted for the purpose of record that the decision of the Tribunal in Order No. 201/86-B1 has not taken into consideration the decision reported i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
