9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (4) TMI 222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Black and Rubber Processing Chemicals falling under Central Excise Tariff Items 16AA, 64 and 65 respectively were added in columns 2 and 3 of the Table, and Tyres, Tubes and Flaps falling under Tariff Item 16 were added columns 4 and 5 of the Table as serial Nos. 19, 20 and 21 of the said Table of the Notification No. 95/79-C.E. After amendment on 28.2.1982 as aforesaid, the text of the Notification No. 95/79-C.E., dated 1.3.1979 insofar as the three inputs and the final products tyres, tubes and flaps are concerned, read as follows :- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts the excisable goods of the description specified in column (5) of the Table hereto Annexed (such goods being hereinafter referred to as final products") and falling under such Item No. of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), as is specified in the corresponding entry in column of the said Table, from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as is equivalent to the amount of - (a) the duty of excise leviable under the aforesaid First Schedule plus the special duty of e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cessing Chemicals used in the manufacture of such tyres, tubes and flaps, subject to fulfillment of the conditions laid down in the Notification. One of the conditions was that for availing of this exemption the procedure set out in Rule 56-A of the Central Excise Rules was followed. 2. The commodities covered by Rule 56-A were required to be specified by issue of Notification under sub-rule (1) of Rule 56-A. The parent Notification issued under this sub-rule was the Notification No. 223/62-C.E., dated 29.12.1962. By Notification No. 198/83-C.E., dated 1.8.1983 issued under sub-rule (1) of Rule 56-A, goods falling under Item 16 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 were included as entry No. 59 in the said parent Notification No. 223/62-C.E. As a result of this amendment, under Rule 56-A as it stood after amendment, Central Excise duty and additional duty paid on raw materials, component parts and finished products used in the manufacture of tyres, tubes and flaps could be set off against the duty payable on such tyres, tubes and flaps, provided, inter alia, that the duty on such raw material and component parts was paid under the same Tariff Item as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hane, (ii) 1978 ELT (J-452) (SC) -Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd. v. Union of India and Others, (iii) 1987 (29) ELT 275 (Tribunal) - Sundaram Fasteners Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras, (iv) AIR 1986 (SC) 1499 - M/s. Girdhari Lal Sons v. Balbir Nath Mathur and Others, (v) Tribunal s Order Nos. 774 to 776/1987-D, dated 29.8.1987 in Appeals No. E-1413/81-D, 205/81 -D and 287/83-D -1987 (32) ELT 579 (Tribunal) - Collector of Central Excise, Madras v. M/s. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. (vi) 1986 (26) ELT 65 (Tribunal) = 1986 (8) ETR 400 (Tribunal) - Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Vikrant Tyres Ltd. and (vii) 1987 (27) ELT 692 (Tribunal) = 1987 (Vol. 11) ECC Page T-90 (Tribunal) -Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Guntur, in support of his arguments. 5. Appearing for the respondent, Shri G.V. Naik has argued as follows :- (i) The three inputs, viz. Synthetic Rubber, Carbon black and Rubber processing Chemicals, were included in the exemption Notification No. 95/79-C.E. by amending Notification No. 58/82-C.E., dated 28.2.1982. The amending Notification did not have retrospective effect. The same was effective from 1.3.1982. Theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uts were received much earlier than the date of issue of Notification No. 198/83-C.E., dated 1.8.1983 under sub-rule (1) of Rule 56-A. Therefore, the appellants were not eligible either for exemption under Notification No. 95/79-C.E. or for proforma credit under Rule 56-A. (vi) The claim for refund was time-barred under Section 11 -B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Duty was paid on the inputs prior to 27.2.1982, but the refund claim was filed on 16.8.1982. (vii) No refund by cash or cheque was permissible as per provision of Rule 56-A(3)(vi)(b). (viii) In the case reported in 1984 (18) ELT 135 (Tribunal), D-3 intimation could not be sent in extenuating circumstances. None of the other decisions relied on by Shri Ignitious held that proforma credit was available in respect of goods received prior to the date of the Notification. So, the ratio of those decisions is not applicable to the present case. In support of his arguments Shri Naik has relied on the following judgments :- (i) 1982 ELT 844 (M.P.) Gwalior Rayon Mfg. Wvg. Co. v. Union of India and Others; (ii) AIR 1973 S.C. 1445 Sri Ram Mohan Motor Service v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad; (iii) Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that plain words should be interpreted according to their plain meaning to achieve aforesaid purpose. Shri Ignitious cited this judgment in support of his contention that in the Central Budget of 1982, the duty on tyres, tubes and flaps was increased to 66% ad valorem, but the assessees were not to increase the price of these goods. Partial exemption was, therefore, granted under Notification No. 58/82-C.E., dated 28.2.1982 adding three inputs as mentioned therein, to the exemption Notification No. 95/79-C.E. According to him, the object was to allow the exemption and not to deny it. In the case of Vikrant Tyres Ltd., reported in 1986 (26) ELT 65 (Tribunal) = 1986 (8) ETR 400, duty paid goods were received and consumed in the production of dutiable finished goods. The Deptt. denied the benefit of set-off of duty paid on the inputs as the D-3 intimation was delayed and the goods were not available for verification. In the facts of that case, the Tribunal allowed the set-off. The appeal filed in the case of Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Guntur [1987 (27) ELT 692 (Tribunal) = 1987 (Vol. 11) ECC Page 90] was allowed by the Tribunal considering the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the Collector of Central Excise for his permission to avail of the procedure and the Collector may grant permission subject to the conditions mentioned in sub-rule (3) of Rule 56-A and such other conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Govt. from time to time. Sub-rule (3) prescribes many conditions. Some of the important conditions are that a manufacturer shall: (a) give prior notice to the proper officer before the duty-paid inputs are received in his factory to enable the proper officer to be present at the time of receipt of such inputs; (b) bring to the factory the inputs in the original packing under the cover of AR 1 or such other documents as may be approved by the Central Board of Excise and Customs in this behalf or Bill of entry evidencing the payment of excise duty or additional duty of Customs (countervailing duty); (c) produce the inputs when brought to the factory before the proper officer to enable him to identify the same and verify the actual quantity thereof; and (d) maintain an account in Form RG 23, Part I and II. None of the above conditions and also the other prescribed conditions were fulfilled by the appellants. So far as an application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dates of payments of duty on the inputs. This argument has not been controverted by the appellants. The time limit cannot be counted from the date of clearance of the finished products, viz. tyres, tubes and flaps, as the refund of duty paid on tyres, tubes and flaps was not claimed in the appellants application dated 18.6.1982. In the said application refund was claimed in respect of duty paid on Synthetic Rubber, Carbon black and Rubber processing Chemicals, which were in their stock on 27.2.1982. No materials have been placed before us by the appellants to establish that duty was paid in excess on those input materials. Therefore, no question of refunding the same does arise in this case. 9. The refund was, therefore, correctly rejected by the lower authorities. There is no justification to interfere with their orders. The impugned order is, therefore, upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 10. In view of the above findings and order, it is not necessary to discuss the facts, the cases and the ratio of the decisions relied on by Shri Naik. It is also not necessary to discuss and give findings on the other points raised by him as such discussion will be academic in nature. We, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
