Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1990 (3) TMI 176

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appeals of the appellants and confirmed the order-in-original Nos. V(15-A) 3-1-82/1360 dated 11-2-1983, No. V-68/18-10/82/5775 dt. 30-6-1983 and No. V(68) 15-9/82/5772 dated 30-6-1983 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise Division, Ujjain. 3. The appellants are manufacturers of HDPE Jerrycans. Prior to 28-2-1982, these goods fell under CET Tariff Item 15A(2) and availed exemption from the whole of duty leviable thereon vide Notification No. 68/71 dated 29-5-1971 as amended till 27-2-1982. By Finance Bill 1982, the description of Item 15A was amended and the goods in question fell out of the scope of Tariff Item 15A and were classifiable under CET item 68 subject to a duty of 8% ad valorem basic w.e.f. 28-2-1982. The valu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lling under TI 68 w.e.f. 28-2-1982. He further held that the appellants goods were also not covered by any exemption under any notification during the period of demand i.e. from 28-2-1982 to 10-5-1982. He however, held that by Notification No. 182/82 dated 11-5-1982, such HDPE Jerrycans falling under TI 68 were entitled to exemption provided the conditions stipulated in the notification were fulfilled. 6. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) upheld the order-in-original passed by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Ujjain, and held that as per section 4 of the Provisional Collections of Taxes Act, the provisions of Finance Bill 1982 came into effect from 28-2-1982. Accordingly, the items falling under TI 68 became excisable as o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt of whole of excise duty. 8. Shri M.G. Chitnis, Consultant for the appellants, argued the case and submitted that the appellants continued to be covered under Tariff Item 15A(2) till the passing of Finance Act and the exemption which was available to them under the Notification No. 68/71 dated 29-5-1971 as amended till 27-2-1982 and clearances effected from 5-4-1982 to 27-4-1982 and 1-5-1982 to 7-5-1982. He further submitted that Notification No. 149/82 is partly applicable for the demands made in Appeal No. 975/86-C and it is fully applicable to the demands made in Appeal No. 976/86-C. He has relied upon the following citations Collector of Central Excise, Pune v. M/s. Peico Electronics Electricals Ltd. [1986 (6) ECR 416 T = 1987 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o seek exemption. It is only by Notification No. 149/82 dated 22-4-1982 the appellants could get the exemption to the impugned goods. Hence, the lower authorities have committed an error in rejecting the appellants claim for exemption to their impugned goods from 22-4-1982 onwards. The Collector s findings that the Finance Bill was passed as an Act on 11-5-1982 and that the duty is leviable till this day by the provisions of Section 4 of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act is not correct. As the effective date of exemption of the Notification No. 149/82 is 22-4-1982, hence the appellants are entitled for duty exemption for clearances made from the date of Notification No. 149/82-CE dated 22-4-1982. The duty paid for the period prior to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s the date of the notification i.e. 22-4-1982 and not the date of the passing of the Act i.e. 11-5-1982. Hence the benefit of the Notification No. 149/82 has to be given to the appellants from its date i.e. 22-4-1982. They are entitled to claim refund for duty paid beyond this day. 13. The ruling relied on by Shri S. Chakraborty, learned Departmental Representative in the case of Wallace Flour Mills reported in [1989 (44) E.L.T. 598] lays down the ruling that the effective date of charging duty is the date of clearance of the goods and not the date of manufacture. This ruling has no relevance for determining the facts of this case. 14. In view of the matter taken by us, the appeal is allowed in the terms laid down by us, with consequent .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates