9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (4) TMI 144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Metal containers. But as per the Notification No. 191/83, dated 8-7-1983 amending Notification No. 34/83, dated 1-3-1983 and the Explanation inserted thereto, according to the Department, the sizes eligible for exemption have been prescribed. The appellants do not utilise the metal containers as described in the Notification, and as such they cannot avail exemption from duty in the value of metal containers used in the packing of PP food products from 8-7-1983. In the circumstances, show cause notices were issued on 7-1-1984; 21-5-1984; and 10-7-1984 raising demands (i) for Rs. 55,984.93 for the period from 8-7-1983 to 31-12-1983; (ii) for Rs. 35,431.92 for the period from 1-1-1984 to 31-3-1984 and (iii) for Rs. 36,901.29 for the period fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... correct in so far as the matter involved in this case is the question of applicability of the amendment to Notification No. 34/83, dated 1-3-1983. This Notification was amended by Notification No. 191/83, dated 7-3-1983 under which the sizes of container was restricted for the purpose of availing the benefit for exemption. In the instant case, the assessees have availed the exemption in respect of metal container having the sizes other than those specified in the Explanation to the Notification No. 43/83 and therefore the assessees are not entitled to the exemption. By virtue of amendment to the Notification No. 34/83, the quantum of exemption has been restricted to the sizes specified in the Explanation to the said notification. (b) The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contended the ld. Counsel, is different from a proviso to a notification. The Explanation is only clarificatory. It cannot have the effect of limiting the scope of the exemption. Ld. Counsel also referred to a clarification issued by the Finance Ministry, dated 8-7-1983 in F. No. B.2/4/83-TRU which would also support the appellants case. 5. Shri M.K. Jain, ld. S.D.R. contended that the Explanation is by way of amendment to Notification 34/83 and it lays down that for the purpose of that notification, the cans of the sizes specified in the Explanation only are eligible for rebate at the rate prescribed therein for each size. It follows, therefore, argued the ld. S.D.R., that cans of other sizes fall outside the purview of the exemption. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioned in the notification." A reading of the Para 2 of the above, clearly indicates that the exemption could not be confined to the cans of sizes specified and the Explanation because in that case there was no need at all to clarify as to what are the elements of cost to be considered while computing the cost of metal containers for the purpose of the notification. On the other hand, Para 1 of the instructions shows that the Explanation had been issued so as to specify the cost of metal containers of certain specified trade sizes , of cans which are used for packing P or P foods. Therefore, it can be reasonably concluded that the Explanation does not exhaust the sizes of cans that are only eligible for the exemption. In this context, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
