9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (9) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. From the impugned order, I observe that the Asstt. Collector has confirmed the demand on the ground that the appellants availed of the exemption in terms of Para 4(a) of the Notification No. 175 / 86 during the year 1989-90 and therefore, they were not entitled to avail of the exemption under Para 4(b) of the said Notification during the month of April, 1992 in view of the amendment of the said Notification by Notification No. 55/92 dated 31-3-1992 which came into force from 1-4-1992. The appellants have contended that the Notification No. 55/92 dated 31-3-1992 was published in the Ministry of Finance Department Revenue GSR 376(E) and the said Notification was despatched by the Printing Press, Ring Road, Maya Puri, New Delhi to the Gov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the clarification issued by the Board vide Cochin Trade Notice 66/92 dated 29-6-1992 published in ECR Volume 61 of the issue dated 15-9-1992. According, to this clarification the position prevailing before the issue of amending Notification 55/92-CE dated 31-3-1992 has been restored in respect of unregistered units whose clearances exceed Rs. 7.5 lacs per year and claimed exemption under first proviso to Paragraph 4 of Notification 175/86. It has been pleaded that as per this clarification the provision of Notification 55/92 would not be applicable till 31-3-1993 and therefore, the demand raised for the month of April, 1992 is not justified. 5. I find that the Assistant Collector has in fact applied the provision of Notification No. 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d discrimination. When the intention is clearly to defer the application of the Notification 55/92 till 1-4-1993 by which date the unregistered units are required to register themselves as SSI Units, there could be no logic in leaving a gap during which the benefit of deferment of the Notification 55/92 would not operate. Therefore, it is reasonable that this doubt called for some clarification and I observe that the required clarification has since been issued by the Board and this has been published in the form of Trade Notices not only by other Collectorates but also by the Central Excise Collectorate. New Delhi vide Trade Notice No. 25-CE(Misc.-20) (42) dated 10-9-1992. It has been clarified that the position prevailing before the issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
