9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (1) TMI 258X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6-6-1977. As no procedure was prescribed in the Notification and no procedure was notified to the appellants by the department, the appellants continued to clear the finished excisable goods by paying full excise duty reserving their right to claim the statutory exemption for the duty paid on input goods from the date of notification. By a letter dated 3-8-1977, Bombay Collectorate of Central Excise issued instructions about the procedural requirements. By a letter dated 12-8-1977, the appellants were notified about these instructions by the department. A formal Trade Notice No. 158/77 dated 3-8-1977 was also issued by the Bombay Collectorate. As the procedural requirements were cumbersome and impracticable and in view of the appellants outside the purview of the said notification, the appellants were unable to comply with the same fully but continued to submit D3 intimations to the Central Excise Authorities. The same were duly verified and accepted by the Central Excise Authorities. Notification No. 295/77 dated 28-9-1977 was issued amending the Notification No. 178/77 and in pursuance thereof, the Bombay Collectorate issued Trade Notice No. 231/77 dated 4-11-1977 thereby modifyi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ords as is equivalent to the duty of excise already paid on the inputs , the words subject to the condition that the manufacturer furnishes to the proper officer a statement showing the quantity of the inputs used in the manufacture of every unit of the said goods shall be inserted." 5. Copy of letter dated 26th June, 1977, referred to above addressed by the appellants to the department, is produced wherefrom it can be seen that the appellants had stated as under: We inted to avail the benefit given therein we request you to advise us at the earliest of the procedure to be followed and requirement if any to be complied. 6. As per copy at Annexure-B, the Bombay Central Excise Collectorate issued a Trade Notice No. 158 whereby instructions for the guidance of the trade have been issued and wherein it has been stated as under: The manufacturer who intends to avail of the set-off, of duty as predetermined and approved by an Officer not below the rank of Asstt. Collector of Central Excise on the goods falling under T.I. No. 68 will be allowed to take set-off of duty at the time of clearance of the finished excisable products provided the manufacturer follows the undermen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 18-6-1977 and that they are not entitled for cash refund in lieu of set-off. (ii) The procedure prescribed under Trade Notice No. 158(MP) General (29)/1977 dated 3-8-1977 issued by the Collector of Central Excise Bombay which was necessary for entitlement of set-off was not followed by the Company." 10. According to the ld. Advocate, the notification did not lay down any procedure and so, the procedure laid down by the Trade Notices whereby the manufacturer could claim benefit only by way of set-off, was not proper and legal. He submitted that the Trade Notice cannot restrict the scope of notification. It does not say that the manufacturer cannot claim cash refund. He cited Collector of Central Excise v. Sarabhai Chemicals reported in 1989 (42) E.L.T. 417 (Tribunal) in support of his contention that merely due to procedural deviations, benefit of notification should not be denied. In the said case, it has been laid down as under: It is well settled by a series of judgments that procedural deviations should not be allowed to come in the way of availing substantive benefit of exemption given to a manufacturer in the form of an exemption notification. Therefore, nothing wron ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the Notification nor can it in any way restrict the scope of the notification. He cited Deccan Sales Corporation and Another v. R. Parsarthi and Others reported in 1982 (10) E.L.T. 885 (Bombay). In this case the question was regarding the application of Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 as it stood in the year 1970. The relevant provision which came for interpretation was sub-section 3(vi) to Rule 56A as it stood at the relevant time which reads as under: (3) (i) x x x x x (ii) x x x x x (iii) x x x x x (iv) x x x x x (v) x x x x x (vi) Except to the extent provided in the second proviso to sub-rule (2), the credit allowed in respect of any material or component parts shall be utilised towards payment of duty on the finished excisable goods in the manufacture of which such materials or component parts are used or on the materials or component parts themselves and no part of such credit shall be refunded in cash or by cheque." And the Hon ble High Court interpreting the sub-rule held as under : Although Rule 56A would entitle the parties to avail of the benefit of paying duty by adjustment yet there is nothing in clause (vi) to Rule 56A to warrant the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
