9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (5) TMI 104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder per : S.D. Mohile, Member (T)]. Both these appeals involve a common issue and have been heard and are being decided together. The issue involved is whether Topskin, Bottomskins, side skin and shreadings are leviable to nil rate of duty under Notification No. 53/88 as claimed by the appellants or are chargeable to duty at the rates prescribed under Notification No. 54/88 as held by the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty of excise leviable thereon used in Notification No. 53/88 also includes nil rate of duty as held by Patna High Court decision in the case of Tata Yodagawa Ltd. and Another v. Union of India and Others reported in 1987 (32) E.L.T. 521 which was also followed in the case of I.E.L. Ltd. v. CCE, Bombay - reported in 1988 (35) E.L.T. 142 (T). The alternate plea taken on behalf of the appellants is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted by the provisions of Notification No. 217/86 which exempts inputs captively consumed for further manufacture by including a proviso that provided that nothing contained in this notification shall apply to inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products which are exempt from whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon or is chargeable to nil rate of duty. Hence, the waste m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... blocks and from which the impugned waste material has arisen. The position would have been different if there had been a positive levy of duty on such uncut polyurethane foam block themselves, as distinct from the duty paid on the materials going into the manufacture of such block. It is well settled that when there is an apparent conflict between two provisions then a harmonious interpretation w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
