9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog1993 (6) TMI 143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondents. [Order per : G.P. Agarwal, Member (J)]. - Being dissatisfied with the confirmation of the demand of duty of Rs. 9,059.34, the appellants have filed their present appeal. 2. Shortly put the facts of the case are that, the appellants are inter alia engaged in the manufacture of tyres/tubes/flaps and other rubber products falling under Chapter 40 of the Central Excise Tariff, 1985. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... since the duty on Cisemar was at the rate of 15% ad valorem on 30-4-1986, this quantity of Cisemar should have been cleared on payment of duty at the rate of 15% ad valorem instead of 10% ad valorem, that is to say, the rate at which the duty was paid at the time of clearance and, therefore, there was a short levy of Rs. 9,059.34. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellants and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot manufacturer of the inputs and cited the case of SAE (India) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, 1992 (61) E.L.T. 726. In reply, Smt. Ananya Ray, learned SDR, submitted that before the removal of the goods permission of the authority concerned is required and the facts of the said case of SAE (India) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, supra, are distinguishable. 4. Considered. The short que ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... actory. This position, in our opinion, would hold good only after 1-3-1992 after the Rule 57F was suitably amended; and prior to that period, the rate prevalent on the date of removal of the goods from the factory from which the goods were removed under Rule 57F would have to be applied, in view of the specific provision of the rule prior to such amendment. 6. In the instant case, it is seen from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
