9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (11) TMI 187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een cleared under Nil duty gate-pass on 14th April, 1980 but they were actually removed from the factory only on 29th July, 1980. In the meantime, on 24th April, 1980, Notification No. 279/77 which granted exemption to such goods was rescinded by issue of Notification No. 45/80. The appellants have explained that although the goods were cleared from their bonded storeroom under Nil duty gate-pass on 14th April 1980, they were kept in the duty paid store-room and not cleared out of the factory as they were not allowed to leave the factory due to labour problems. The Assistant Collector ordered the appellants to pay duty on the impugned goods on the grounds that the company had not been able to produce any proof to show that the gate-pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of drawn waste falling under sub-items 1 or 11 of Item No. 18 of the Central Excise Tariff and the appellants have not furnished any evidence to establish that their product satisfied this condition. 5. The facts of the case and the submissions made before us have been carefully considered. So far as the learned JDR s point that the appellants have not furnished any evidence that their product satisfied the condition of Notification No. 279/77, dated 12-8-1977 that the fibres and tops should be manufactured out of drawn wastes, is concerned, the doubt raised has no basis in any evidence on record. On the other hand, we find that in para 2 of his order the Appellate Collector has virtually conceded that the appellant is manufacturing stap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a point has been raised by the appellant company which had not been raised as precisely and clearly by them before the Appellate Collector and perhaps therefore had not received attention. The point is that the impugned goods were completely exempt when manufactured, that is, before the 24th April, 1980 and therefore no duty would be leviable when this exemption is withdrawn. This is a point on which the law is well-settled and the appellant company is well fortified by the case law cited by them in their favour. 8. In this view of the matter it is unnecessary for us to go into the question whether in a case like this removal of goods from the bonded store-room to the duty paid store-room would constitute removal for purposes of duty lia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
