9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (1) TMI 309X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng 2942.00 ( other organic compounds ) of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. By Notification No. 31/88-C.E., dated 1-3-1988 issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government exempted Bulk drugs (including salts, esters and derivatives, if any) specified under the First Schedule to the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1987, as amended from time to time from payment of the whole of the excise duty leviable thereon and other bulk drugs from excise duty leviable thereon in excess of 5% ad valorem. (The said Order is hereinafter referred to as the DPCO ). Paracetamol is admittedly a bulk drug and figured in the First Schedule to the DPCO. However, it was deleted from the First Schedule and inser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing on this letter, Shri Subramanyam submits that the dutiability of Paracetamol at 5% ad valorem shall be deemed to have commenced only on 25-1-1989. For this purpose, he relies inter alia on the Bombay High Court judgment in GTC Industries Limited, Bombay Another v: Union of India Another. - 1988 (33) E.L.T. 83 (Bom.) and the Tribunal s decision in Haryana Plywood Industries v. Collector of Customs -1991 (51) E.L.T. 119 (Tri.), holding that it is the date the Gazette containing the notification was made available to the public, and not the date printed on the Gazette, that determines the date the notification comes into effect. In view of this settled position, Shri Jayaraman, SDR, does not make any submission in this behalf. In the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t had not raised the dispute regarding the rate of duty till the proceedings were initiated against him under Section 11A of the Central Excises Salt Act for demanding differential duty. It is Shri Subramanyam s submission that once the Department reopened the assessment under Section 11A of the Act, the entire assessment is at large and whatever relief the appellant is legitimately entitled to could be sought and, if established, it should be granted. Shri M. Jayaraman, for the Revenue, submits that the appellant had not put forth the claim for Modvat relief before the Additional Collector and he is not in a position to say whether the appellant is eligible. He seeks to distinguish the present case from the Lili Foam case by submitting t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n it has been held that any additional ground can be allowed to be raised even before the Tribunal if relief on that ground can be granted to the party. However, Shri Jayaraman, SDR, seeks to distinguish the present case from the two decisions relied on by Shri Subramanyam. His submission that the judgment of the Supreme Court does not apply because it is not the right of the assessee that is in question but its very eligibility lacks force. 7. We do not think it is necessary to discuss the case law cited before us because, in our view, the benefit of any duty relief that is admissible to the appellant in terms of a statutory notification or rule cannot be denied to him simply on the ground that at the earlier stage of the proceedings no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
