9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (6) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s authorised the Assistant Collector concerned to file this appeal. The respondent in the appeal M/s. New Shorrock Mills, Nadiad have filed a cross objection in this case also. Therefore, both the appeals and cross-objections are being considered and decided simultaneously. 2. The main point taken up in the appeal by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise is that Notification No. 7/78 dated 17-1-1978 which added Explanation III to Notification No. 226/77, dated 15-7-1977 should have the effect from the date of the issue and not retrospectively. The effect of the Notification No. 7/78, dated 17-1-1978 was that it permitted the department to calculate the average count of yarn in the cotton fabrics where yarns of different counts had bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tral Excises and Salt and Additional Duties of Excise (Amendment) Act, 1980 (No. 6 of 1980) dated 12-2-1980. As per the Ordinance and the Act retrospective effect was given to the amendment carried out in Item 19 definition of manufacture in Section 2(f) and also to the notification issued thereunder. It is important to observe that the phraseology of the Act No. 6 of 1980 was identical to the phraseology of the Finance Bill, 1982 which also give retrospective effect to Section 4 and to amendments to Rules 9 and 49. However, in particular, Shri Trivedi pointed out sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Central Excises and Salt and Additional Duties of Excise (Amendment) Act, 1980 which gives retrospective effect to any rule, notification etc. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... endment) Act, 1980 and as per these provisions the Notification No. 7/78, dated 17-1-1978 has retrospective effect and this is available in determining the average count of yarn in the cotton fabrics covered by the appeal. In view of this legal position, we do not find justification in the appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda and the same is dismissed. As regards the cross-objection filed by the respondent, it is seen that the same merely seeks to justify the order of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise. It does not seek to vary any part of the aforesaid order. Therefore, this cross-objection seems to have been filed through misconception of law. The same is also dismissed as not being valid and correct. - - TaxT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
