9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (6) TMI 142X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ows : "The appellants are manufacturing articles of plastics namely Metoplast Industrial Packing, Metoplast consumer items and flexible polythene sheets. Up to 28-2-1982 the appellants were clearing the above articles without payment of duty as per Notification No. 68/71, dated 29-5-1971 as amended by Notification Nos. 195/71 and 198/78. On 28-2-1982 Notification No. 52/82 introduced a levy of excise duty of 8% on the above articles. The appellants contended before the Asst. Collector of Central Excise that when duty was first imposed on any article the stock already held by a manufacturer prior to the date of imposition of duty should be fully exempted. The appellants accordingly made a claim of refund of duty paid under protest on artic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods on which duty is exempted were dutiable goods having been included in the First Schedule. The effect of the withdrawal of a notification is to make them liable to pay duty and the rate of duty is governed by the provisions of Rule 9-A to Central Excise Rules. The learned Representative relied on the following judgments : 1. 1987 (30) E.L.T. 608 (T) Collector of Central Excise, Pune v. Peico Electronics & Electricals Ltd. 2. 1989 (40) E.L.T. 28 (Guj.) Mihir Textiles Ltd. v. Union of India. 5. The learned Advocate in his rejoinder submitted that the judgment of the Gujarat High Court was delivered in a case where partial exemption was removed whereas in the present appeal there was total exemption and, therefore, nil rate of dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entirely different. 7. The judgment in Shree Synthetics Ltd. (supra) is against the appellants. The learned Advocate heavily relied on the judgment of the High Court of M.P. in the case of Kirloskar Brothers. This judgment was referred to in Shree Synthetics Ltd. and the court recorded that in Shree Synthetics the goods were liable to excise duty both on the date of manufacture and on the date of removal and never wholly exempt. Therefore, they did not follow Kirloskar Brothers. The learned Advocate pointed out that in the light of Shree Synthetics, Kirloskar Brothers judgment holds good when the goods were totally exempt at the time of manufacture and not partially exempt as in Shree Synthetics. This view cannot be accepted in view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
