9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (10) TMI 158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e U.L. Bhat, President]. Appellants were engaged in the manufacture of machinery items covered by erstwhile T.I. 68 on contract basis. The contract contained a clause for escalation of price on account of increase of cost of materials, labour etc. Machinery items were removed from the factory on payment of duty on the prices actually paid by that date. On account of the escalation clause, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be the date when last of the items necessary for the project was removed. There is no dispute relating to the applicability of Rule 9A of the Central Excise Rules (for short the Rules). Rule 9A deals with the date for determination of duty and tariff valuation. Clause (1) and sub-clause (ii) as it stood at the relevant time reads thus :- The rate of duty and tariff valuation, if any, applicable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the duty is paid or is to be paid. The lower authorities have avoided both these dates and set up a new date, the date on which the last of the items of the turnkey project was removed from the factory. This is not in accordance with the Rule 9A and cannot stand. 4. Since sub-rule 9A(l)(ii) contemplates the date of the actual removal of such goods from the factory or warehouse, it is clear that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ta India Limited, Calcutta v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta - 1986 (26) E.L.T. 401 (Tribunal), the Tribunal explained the provision of Rule 9A(1)(ii) and Rule 9A(5) of the Rules. The Tribunal held that where date of actual removal of goods is ascertainable it is Rule 9A(1)(ii) which is applicable and Rule 9A(5) cannot apply. These decisions support the view we have taken. 6. We, therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
