1993 (12) TMI 143

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eir factory situated at Kudal under the provisions of the Notification No. 118/75, dt. 30-4-1975, before 1-3-1986 without payment of Central Excise duty under Chapter X procedure. The said Notification No. 118/75 was rescinded by the Notification No. 186/86, dt. 1-3-1986. Therefore, the show cause notice issued by the Range Superintendent alleged that Chapter X procedure was not available to them .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed that the subject goods being intermediate goods to be used in their final product, the benefit of the Notification No. 118/75 withdrawn from 1-3-1986 was again restored by the Notification No. 217/86, dated 2-4-1986, with retrospective effect. The Hon ble Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. Collector reported in 1990 (49) E.L.T. 279 upheld this view. They also contended that if they have .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e allegation cannot be sustained. Once, the goods have been received as per the provisions of the Rules and the Notification during the relevant time, the only other requirement is whether the goods are used for the purposes indicated in the Notification. Even though, the said Notification was rescinded, the benefit already allowed earlier cannot be withdrawn, since there is no such provision in t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X