9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (4) TMI 139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not permit the view taken by the Collector (Appeals), it has been contended. This provision specifically laid down that no credit shall be allowed unless duty had been paid for the material (used in the manufacture) under the same item as the finished excisable goods. In the present case, this condition is not satisfied as the materials used, namely, cement and asbestos fall under Tariff Items different from that of the finished excisable goods, namely Asbestos Cement Product. It has, therefore, been pleaded that the impugned Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector (Appeals) be set aside and the Order-in-Original passed by the Assistant Collector denying them the benefit of Rule 56A restored. 3. The Respondents, M/s. Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products Ltd. have, for their part, filed a Cross Objection against the said Order-in-Appeal, challenging the finding therein to the effect that the benefit of Rule 56A would be available to them only from the date the permission was granted by the Assistant Collector. Both the Appeal and the Cross Objection had been transferred to Special Bench but later on retransferred to this Bench. The same are disposed of by us now. 4. The Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en notified under sub-rule (2) of Rule 56A did not mean that the requirement in terms of the proviso (ii) to sub-rule (2) for the materials used and the manufactured goods falling under the same Tariff item was not applicable as wrongly held by the Collector (Appeals). In fact, the Assistant Collector had interpreted the provisions correctly by reading sub-rules (1) and (2) together, as it should be. The Collector (Appeals) was wrong in finding fault with this approach of the Assistant Collector. A wrong interpretation had been placed by the Collec tor (Appeals) on the effect of the expression "Notwithstanding anything con tained in these Rules" with which Rule 56A(1) starts. The scope of this expression can only mean that whatever has been provided for in the other provisions in Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rule 56A will prevail. That does not mean that this Rule itself should be split up into parts and that one part, namely, proviso (ii) to sub-rule (2) thereof will be shut out because of the non obstante provision in Rule 56A. Such provision will apply to the Rule as a whole. The stipulation that no credit shall be allowed unless duty has been paid for the material under the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... finished excisable goods would relate only to a case where the finished excisable goods are exempt from duty or are chargeable to nil rate of duty. 8. We have examined the above-mentioned contentions carefully. The judgment of the Honourable Bombay High Court is referred to by the Respondents in their Cross Objection. In the said judgment [1977 (1) E.L.T. (J 34)], the Honourable High Court had observed, inter alia, that the question of application under Rule 56A arises only for goods which are subject to duty of excise under more than one item of excisable goods mentioned in the Tariff Schedule and that in respect of goods which have already borne excise duty and do not fall under a different item of excisable goods in the First Schedule, it is impossible that duty could once again be levied. 9. With due respect to the Honourable Court it should be noted that subsequent to their judgment which is dated 19th/20th August, 1970, the Honourable Supreme Court had, in Laminated Packings (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Guntur, rejected the contention that even if the goods in question belong to the same entry, they are different identifiable goods known as such in the market ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ponent parts is sanctioned by the Government. It was further held that the proviso to Rule 56A(2) is categorical that the of duty which may otherwise be allowed credit under Rule 56A(2) shall not be allowed unless the conditions in the proviso are satisfied. They accordingly rejected as unsustainable the contention raised that the proviso in question works in a direction different from the main provisions contained in sub-rule (2) of Rule 56A. The judgment to the same effect rendered by the Honourable Gujarat High Court in Digvijay Cement Company Limited v. Union of India - 1986 (25) E.L.T. 879 was also taken note of by them and followed. The Honourable Gujarat High Court had held that proforma credit specified in Rule 56A(1) does not ensure to the benefit of a manufacturer of finished excisable goods unless the excise duty under the same Tariff item on the finished excisable goods on the one hand and the raw materials and the component parts used in the manufacture of finished excisable goods on the other is paid under the same Tariff item. In view of this clear legal position, as laid down by two High Courts, the contention raised by the Respondents on the scope of Rule 56A deser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
