9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (2) TMI 271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Copper wire bars were imported by M.M.T.C. on behalf of appellant on payment of countervailing duty at the rate of Rs. 3000/- per Metric Tonne in addition to the Special Excise Duty". The copper wire bars were sent by the appellants to M/s. Navyug Steel Industries for purposes of construction into copper rods, flats and strips and the goods were received by the appellants on such conversion and thereafter the appellants reduces the size and thickness of the rods, flats and strips. The appellants were permitted to avail the proforma credit facility in terms of Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules by order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Hubli, dated 14-2-1985 in respect of the said goods. While filing the classification list, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be liable to pay any duty at all. The learned Counsel further submitted that the original authority, viz. the Assistant Collector of Central Excise has not addressed himself to the question as to whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of Central Excise Notification No. 175/84 cited supra, nor has the Assistant Collector adverted to, much less considered the plea of the appellants that the proforma credit in terms of Rule 56A will have to be taken into account in calculating the quantum of duty payable by the appellants. The learned Counsel also submitted that notwithstanding the fact that the appellants took out a licence, filed classification list and cleared the goods on payment of duty, in their reply to the Show Cause Notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in question and would be entitled lo take credit under the proforma facility only in respect of the duty suffered by the inputs at the hands of M/s. Navyug Steel Industries. The learned S.D.R. also submitted that the question as to whether the appellants are the manufacturers or not in respect of the goods in question is a non-issue in the present appeal. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made before us. The short question that arises for our consideration in the present appeal is whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/84 or not. It is a common case that the appellants are not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 174/84 and indeed the proviso to Notification No. 174/84 is categori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith the Department only on the limited question that the duty suffered by the inputs should be set off against the appellant s duty liability when the appellants had been permitted to avail proforma credit in terms of Rule 56A of the Rules. Therefore, we hold that the issue in regard to the manufacture does not arise for consideration in the present appeal and it is open to the appellants to urge the question if it is permissible in law in other proceedings. Therefore without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue, in view of the fact that the basic issues raised by the appellants in the reply to the Show Cause Notice have not been considered by the original authority, we set aside the impugned order appealed against and remit th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
