9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (1) TMI 159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d has granted permission under that rule from the Assistant Collector. The Assistant Collector has cancelled the said permission in April, 1988 in response to a request to that effect from the first appellant, since it stopped working under the special procedure. The first appellant received in 1991 partially oriented yarn for texturising from M/s. Bhagwati Cotton Trading Company, who had imported it without payment of duty under the DEEC Scheme. After texturising, the yarn was returned to the importer and it is not in dispute that it subsequently exported in discharge of export obligation under DEEC Scheme. In July, 1992, Central Excise Officers visited the first appellant s premises and were informed that the yarn which was lying in stock ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication No. 79/86, by which the goods would be entitled to exemption was clarificatory in nature and therefore would have retrospective application. The second contention was that the demand was barred by limitation. It is the appellants contention that since the yarn has been imported under DEEC Scheme and was to be exported, it acted under the bona fide belief that the benefit of notification will be available to it. 3. We shall take up the second contention first. The notice alleged (in Paragraphs 6 and 10) that the second appellant, the Managing Director of the first appellant, wilfully, deliberately and consciously refrained from filing a declaration as required by the Central Excise Rules about the fact of processing and on this ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de from exempted dyes on the ground that the inputs were exempted from the whole of duty of excise. The Circular concluded: This logic would apply to other similar cases also where exemption has been given considering that the finished products have been made from inputs on which appropriate duty of excise has already been paid. The opinion that one would form on reading this circular is that it had for long been the view of the Board, which had been communicated to the Collectors, that exemptions to finished goods cannot be denied, by invoking the proviso in a notification, that the input has not suffered duty, in cases where the input is exempted. 5. The Departmental Representative is, no doubt, right in saying that the Board cannot, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
