9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (4) TMI 174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants herein to the benefit of exemption under Notification 234/86-C.E., dated 3-4-1986. 2. Prior to 1-3-1986 bulk drugs manufactured by the appellants fell under TI 68 of the Schedule to the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff and were wholly exempted from excise duty by virtue of Notification No. 234/82 dated 1-1-1982 which remained in force till 27-2-1986. This notification was superseded by Notification 76/86 dated 10-2-1986 which came into force only on 28-2-1986. However, on 27-2-1986 Notification 108/86 was issued exempting bulk drugs from payment of excise duty. With the advent of new Central Excise Tariff on 28-2-1986 the appellants were of the view that the bulk drugs would fall for classification under sub-heading 3003.20 as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out extending the benefit of the notification. 3. In the meanwhile the appellants by their letter dated 20-5-1986 applied to the Drugs Controller of the Government of India for a certificate that the products manufactured by them were bulk drugs as defined in Notification No. 234/86 and the Certificate came to be issued on 24-6-1986 received by the appellants in August 1986. 4. By a show cause notice dated 24-7-1986 the Department proposed levy of Rs. 7932/- as duty on bulk drugs cleared during the period 1-3-1986 to 2-4-1986 being the period when Notification No. 234/82 was rescinded and there was no notification covering the goods during the above-mentioned period, to which the appellants replied on 6-8-1986. With the coming into forc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e have heard Shri Prakash Shah, learned Counsel and Shri L.N. Murthy, learned DR. 7. Undisputedly the benefit of Notification No. 234/86 was not claimed by the appellants in classification list No. 166/85-86 with which we are concerned. The claim under the notification made in the earlier classification list No. 1/86-87 will not really help the appellants as that classification list was only approved provisionally in respect of the items in dispute and it is classification list 166/85-86 which was finally approved in respect of the disputed items and out of which the demand arises. We, therefore, do not agree with the learned Counsel that the lower appellate authority should have looked into classification list 1/86-87 and we see nothing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
