9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (8) TMI 179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tem 68 for the manufacture of Synthetic Organic Dyes and claiming proforma credit in respect of such countervailing duty paid on dye intermediates in terms of Notification No. 103/61 dated 20-4-1961 which provided for proforma credit subject to observance of the procedure set out in Rule 56A. The appellants vide their letter dated 27-9-1984 applied for permission to avail proforma credit under Rule 56A on inputs viz. Napthylamine 1:5 Disulphonic Acid Monosodium Salt ( D -Salt) falling under Tariff Item 68 used in the manufacture of goods falling under Tariff Item 14D. However, the Assistant Collector vide his letter dated 14-11-1984 informed them that the permission to avail proforma credit vide his letter dated 28-9-1989 was being withdraw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Rs. 1,500/- under sub-rule (4) of Rule 56A and a further penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the grounds that the goods in respect of which credit was availed were not available for confiscation. 2. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Collector the appellants filed an appeal before the Collector (Appeals), who by the impugned order confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Collector. 3. On behalf of the appellants the learned Consultant Shri K.V. Sahasrabudhe, appeared before us. He contended that it was not necessary for the appellants to obtain permission in order to be entitled to the benefit under Notification No. 103/61. He added that only requirement under the Notification was that the procedure under Rule 56A should ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her during the relevant period the appellants were entitled to avail proforma credit in terms of Notification No. 103/61-C.E., dated 28-4-1961 in respect of the countervailing duty paid on imported 2-Napthylamine 1:5 Salt ( D-Salt ) falling under Tariff Item 68 when used as input in the manufacture of S.O. Dyestuffs falling under Tariff Item 14D. 6. It is seen that in the order No. 390/89-C dated 14-8-1989 in the case of M/.s. Arlabs Ltd. v. CCE, Pune the Tribunal has held, that even after the amendment of Rule 56A by Notification No. 104/79 dated 3-3-1979 credit in respect of additional duty of customs paid in respect of any material or component falling under Tariff Item 68 used in the manufacture of finished excisable goods was permi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allenging the decision of the Collector (Appeals) limiting the scope of the demand to a period within six months and holding that demand for the period beyond the said period of limitation time-barred to be hit by time-bar would lose its relevance. However, since we have heard the submissions in respect of that appeal also, we hold that the decision of Collector (Appeals) on the question of time-bar would be in order. With due respect to the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the Torrent Laboratories case cited by the learned Departmental Representative in his arguments, we find that there is a contrary judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Tungabhadra Steel Products Ltd. v. Superintendent of Central Excise reported in 1991 (56) E.L.T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
