9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (7) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been used from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as equivalent to the duty of excise already paid on the raw material falling under Tariff Item 68. Another Notification No. 295/77-CE was issued on 28th September, 1977 amending Notification No. 178/77 to the effect that the manufacturer should furnish to the proper officer a statement showing the quantity of the inputs used in the manufacture of every unit of the said goods. 2. The appellant company applied for availing of the procedure under Rule 56A for purposes of getting the benefit of the above notifications and pending formal orders, commenced availing of proforma credit in terms of the provisions of the Rule. The first communication requesting for permission to avail th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o to Rule 56A(2) and stated that the department was wrong in the stand taken that the credit was not admissible if the inputs and finished excisable goods did not fall under the same Tariff Item, since remission of duty was specifically sanctioned by the government and provided for in the Rule. In this connection, he relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico Printing Co. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay - 1986(8) ETR 607 = 1986(26) E.L.T. 252 (Trib.). 6.The learned JDR has reiterated the view taken by the lower authority and has nothing further to add. 7. The facts of the case and the submissions made before us have been carefully considered. It seems to us that in the light of the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer a statement showing the quantity of inputs used in the manufacture of every unit of the said goods. In the order of the Assistant Collector, there is a reference to this requirement and obviously the implied allegation is that this was not satisfied by the appellants. On the other hand, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant company on the ground that it did not appear that any permission to avail Rule 56A procedure was sought or granted. Dealing with the second point first, we are satisfied on perusal of copies of the appellant s letters, dated 4th August 1977, 10th August 1977 and 31st August 1977 that the appellants duly applied for availing of the proforma credit procedure. We are also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
