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

1992 (9) TMI 188

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ide his letter dated 13-5-1985. In the said letter, the Assistant Collector had held them eligible for proforma credit under Rule 56A in respect of the duty paid on the billets received by them which they used in the manufacture of wire rods cleared to their wire rope making unit at Ranchi and used there for the manufacture of the wire ropes. They had sought such permission for grant of proforma credit benefit for all wire rods cleared by them on payment of duty, some of which were cleared by them to factories of other manufacturers also. This request was, as stated earlier, only partially allowed by the Assistant Collector. Their appeal having been rejected by the Collector (Appeals), they have then filed the present appeal. 2. Shri S.K. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tification 208/83 dated 1-8-1983, the facility under Rule 56A cannot be availed of, in view of Rule 56A(2) and clause (i) of the first proviso thereunder. Shri Bagaria pointed out that there cannot be any objection to the availment of Rule 56A benefit in respect of wire rods manufactured from duty paid billets and Notification 208/83 dated 1-8-1983 is no impediment in that regard as wrongly held by the authorities below. That Notification itself contains a condition for the admissibility of proforma credit by means of a proviso that no credit of duty paid on the inputs should have been taken under Rule 56A. That would mean that if such credit is taken of the duty paid on inputs the benefit of Notification 208/83 for full exemption would not .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eir clearance of wire rods to other manufacturers and restricting the benefit to only their clearance to their wire rope making unit at Ranchi was not proper. The Collector erred in upholding the said decision by failing to appreciate the facts properly and bringing in Notification 95/83 which was not at all relevant to them for their Jamshedpur unit where they manufacture only wire rods and not wire ropes. He, therefore, pleaded that their appeal be allowed. 3. Heard Shri A. Choudhuri, learned Departmental Representative. He supported the impugned Order-in-Appeal. 4. We have considered the submissions. We have gone through the impugned Order-in-Appeal as well as the Assistant Collector s letter dated 13-5-1985 communicating his decisio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... brought in Notification 95/83 dated 1-3-1983 which has got no relevance in the present case. The appellants had also not applied for any permission under the said Notification and it had no application to them covering as it did only the manufacture of wire ropes from duty paid wire rods, wires, billets. The appellants were not manufacturers of wire ropes. They were manufacturing only wire ropes. It is wholly immaterial that they have another unit in another location where wire ropes are manufactured. For availing proforma credit for wire rods made from duty paid billets, they had correctly applied to their jurisdictional Assistant Collector. They had not made any application in regard to Notification 95/83 and it was wholly irrelevant to o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Assistant Collector which on appeal by them had been upheld by the Collector (Appeals). 5. Irrespective of the said appellate decision which is reportedly under challenge before the Tribunal, we feel the present appeal can be disposed of on the basis of the arguments urged in the present proceedings and the facts disclosed in the impugned orders themselves. These have already been discussed. As so observed by us, the grant of Rule 56A for a particular factory is concerned only with the clearance of the final products manufactured therein and not conditional about how and where such duty paid final products are used. If the products cleared after availing proforma credit under Rule 56A are used in the receiving factory for further manuf .....

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