9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (4) TMI 225X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Madras, in the impugned order dated 26-9-1988. 2. On hearing Shri Vijayaraghavan, the learned Consultant for the applicant and Shri K.K. Bhatia, the learned S.D.R., it is seen that the appeal itself lies in a short compass and is to be taken up for disposal today and accordingly the requirement of pre-deposit is dispensed with. 3. A. No. E/49/89. - The appellants herein gave a declaration for inputs for the purpose of availing MODVAT credit thereon as required under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The MODVAT facility is available both for inputs on which Central Excise duty is paid as well as on imported inputs on which Customs Duty has been paid in terms of Rule 57-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. This includes additiona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llants from April/July 1987 was time-barred and at the same time gave a finding that the appellants could not take credit of the countervailing duty paid because it was not duty leviable or duty at all in view of the........... under Central Excise Tariff. 5. Shri Vijayaraghavan, the learned Consultant appearing for the appellants contended that the Collector (Appeals) was in error because he has not appreciated the provision of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 according to which any article which is imported into India shall in addition be liable to a duty equal to the Excise Duty for the time being leviable on a like article if produced or manufactured in India. Therefore, the Collector of Central Excise is wrong in holding that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions of Rule 57-A and also it is well settled principle that what is collected under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 is in the nature of Customs Duty only and it is only for the quantification of the duty leviable under that Section the Central Excise Tariff has to be referred to. In this connection the Supreme Court decision in the case of Khandelwal Metal and Engineering Works & Another v. Union of India and Others [1985 (20) E.L.T. 222 (SC)] would be relevant wherein the Court held that the Additional duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act is in the nature of Customs Duty only. It cannot also be argued that just because there is an Exemption Notification under Central Excise Tariff, it will automatically be applicable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
