9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (11) TMI 125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner submitted that duty demanded is alleged to be differential duty on such quantity of 210 D Nylon yarn cleared at concessional/new rate of duty in terms of Notification 188A/62 dated 3-11-1962 as amended by Notification 48/90 dated 20-3-1990, as amended by Notification 52/91 dated 25-7-1991 for the period June 1987 to February 1992 by issue of show cause notice dated 29-6-1992 by invoking the longer period of limitation in terms of Section 11A of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. It was submitted that the goods cleared are used for manufacture and repair of fishing nets/parachute cords in terms of the Notification cited supra at concessional rate of duty. It was submitted that the goods cleared from the petitioner's factory to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he manufacture of the said fishing nets or parachute cords". On a plain reading of the Notification, if the goods cleared are meant for use for repair or manufacture of fishing nets, parachute goods as in the present case, the petitioner would be prima facie covered by the wording of the Notification. The learned Counsel in this context also placed reliance on the ruling of the Madras High Court in the case of Gopalsamy Industries v MMTC, reported in 1989 (39) E.L.T. 390 dealing with more or less similar situations where the Madras High Court was called upon to interpret the Notification 152/77 dated 15-7-1977 which is similarly worded, in regard to the end-use. The petitioner, the learned Counsel contended, cannot be called upon to pay dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant for use in the manufacture or repair of fishing nets or parachute cords". The wording used is not that it should be "used in the manufacture of fishing nets or parachute cords etc." In this context in our view, the ratio of the ruling of the Madras High Court cited supra would prima facie apply. The Madras High Court dealing with identical and similar condition against the levy of differential duty in regard to waste on a different Notification has observed as under : "In this context it is relevant to note that in the letter written by the 1st Respondent it is clearly mentioned that out of the total quantities of metal released namely 0.500 MT and 1.500 MT the actual quantities consumed were 0.39755 MT and 1.189 MT & the wastes were 0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned Counsel for the first respondent that the petitioner is accountable for the entire quantity of raw material supplied to him. As already stated that when once it has been established that the entire raw material supplied to the petitioner has been fully utilised for the purpose of manufacture for which the raw material has been supplied and in the absence of any specific provision in the Customs Notification No. 152/77 dated 15-7-1977 relating to wastages as occurred in the instant case, the contention of the first respondent cannot be accepted. Under these circumstances, I find that the demand for payment of duty is wrong, is not sustainable in law." We also find some force in the plea of the learned Counsel for the petitioner with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
