9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (4) TMI 158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 5,73,152.02 and penalty of Rs. 10,000/ under the provisions of Central Excises Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 2. Shri Jagadeesan, the learned Counsel for the appellant submits that duty has been levied under the impugned order on the manufacture and removal of spare parts of textile machineries and articles of plastic by the appellant for the period 1-4-1986 to 29-2-1988 by invoking the longer period of limitation in terms of the proviso to Section 11A of the Act. The learned Counsel submitted that the appellant has been denied the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 dated 1-3-1986 on the ground that the plastic articles manufactured by the appellant and parts of textile machinery manufactured, if both clubbed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ra 28 of the impugned order has referred to the ruling of the South Regional Bench in Order No. 798/1987 (Radliika Enterprises v. Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore) and has held that in the absence of licence, it was not possible to grant any exemption. The learned Counsel, in this context, submitted that the ratio of the Special Bench in the case of CCE v. Atlas Radio Electronics Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1989 (39) E.L.T. 123 (Tribunal) and in the case of Structurals Machineries (Bokaro) Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Patna reported in 1984 (17) E.L.T. 127 (Tribunal) would govern the facts of the present case also in favour of the appellant. 4. Heard Shri Vedantham, the learned DR. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made before u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the benefit of the exemption notification on the short ground that the appellant has not taken out a licence. The Special Bench in the case of Structurals Machineries (Bokaro) Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Patna referred to above, while considering the scope of exemption Notification No. 89/79 has held as under :- "13. We have carefully considered this part of the arguments of the parties. The concession in Notification No. 89/79-C.E., dated 1-3-1979 is not dependent on taking out a licence. The demand of duty from the appellants is to be examined on the basis of effective rates of duty provided under the notification and on other conditions of notification being fulfilled which are not disputed in the case. Considering the entire facts and circu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
