9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (5) TMI 144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otional higher credit of duty in respect of inputs purchased from SSI units under Rule 57B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-1986 on basic excise duty as well as special excise duty. The Superintendent of Central Excise issued show cause notice dated 30-8-1988 requiring the appellant to show cause why the higher notional credit should not be held to be inadmissible in respect of special excise duty. The appellant resisted the notice. However the Assistant Commissioner confirmed the notice and directed the appellant to pay Rs. 1,110.95. This order has been conformed by the Collector (Appeals) against which the present appeal is filed. 3. The relevant provision in Notification No. 175/86 is conta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision in case of Sarada Service Corporation took a different view in Collector of Central Excise v. Eimco Elecon (India) Ltd. reported in 1993 (66) E.L.T. 444. Admittedly the inputs used by the appellant have suffered basic excise duty as well as special excise duty. Both these duties are specified for the purpose of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. The Notification is in relation to grant of exemption to first clearance of specified goods upto a particular value and concessional duty on subsequent clearances upto a particular value. Clause (5) is in the nature of exception to the general purport of the notification. Clause (5) relates to specified goods which are subject to Concessional rate of duty as distinguished from goods enjoyin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the rate of duty otherwise applicable, but for the notification. What is significant in Clause (5) is that it applies only to the basic excise duty and not the special excise duty. In other words, the method of reckoning and the quantum to be taken credit of under Clause (5) relates only to basic excise duty and not special excise duty. The two decisions in Reckitt Colman of India Ltd., and Sarada Service Corporation follow the correct understanding of clause (5) of the notification. We find that the view adopted in paragraph 4 of the order in Eimco Elecon ( India ) Ltd., is not in accordance with the provisions in clause (5) of the Notification, as correctly understood. 5. We, therefore, hold that notional credit can be taken only on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
