9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (8) TMI 146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd of several varieties. The declaration was in respect of inpurts lying in stock with the respondents as on 1-3-1987. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise while allowing the credit in respect of some inputs dis-allowed the same in respect of the following inputs i.e. (l)imported gum rosin; (11) dye direct brown MR ; (iii) dye bismark brown R ; (iv) sodium hexameta phosphate. In appeal this order was set aside by the Collector (Appeals). Hence, the present appeal by the Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur. 2. We have heard Shri A.S. Sunder Rajan, DR for the appellant-Collector. The respondents were not represented during the hearing but had furnished written submissions and regretted their inability to be present during the hearin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In other words, no credit was allowable if duty on the inputs (used in the manufacture of final products) was paid on or before 31-1-1986. However, this restriction was inapplicable to those inputs in respect of which credit of duty was allowable under any rule or notification prior to 1-3-1986. One more thing may be noted at this stage. In accordance with one of the provisos to Rule 56A(2), no credit of countervailing duty (additional duty of customs) shall be allowed in respect of any material or component parts used in the manufacture of finished excisable goods, if countervailing duty had been paid in respect of such material, or component parts, as fall under Item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises Salt Act, 1944 (t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not see how the above result flows from a plain reading of the proviso. The appellant s contention on the other hand, is the logical result of a plain reading of the proviso. 5. In respect of the other three inputs, the appellant s contention is that the respondents had paid central excise duty under Items other than 68 of the repealed Schedule and that credit of that duty was not allowable under any rule or notification prior to 1-3-1986 and that excise duty on these inputs having been paid before 31-3-1986, the credit of such duty was barred under Rule 57H(2). This contention has not been rebutted by the respondents. No rule or notification prior to 1-3-1986 which would allow credit of excise duty paid on the subject three inputs has b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
