9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (7) TMI 296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4, had imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on M/s. Maharashtra Steel Industries and penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on each of the four persons. 2. The matter relates to the applicability of exemption Notification No. 208/83-C.E., dated 1-8-1983, in a case where the inputs had been received from the manufacturer under gate passes in which the nil duty had been shown. The adjudicating authority had taken a view that as no duty had been paid on the inputs the final products were not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 208/83-C.E., dated 1-8-1988. 3. Shri P.S. Bedi, Consultant submitted that during the relevant time, there was no such condition in the exemption notification that the benefit will not be available if the goods have been rece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elow :- Provided that such final products are made from any goods of the description specified in the corresponding entry in column 2 of the said table (such goods being hereinafter refer to as inputs) and falling under the said item on which the duty of excise leviable under the said Act, or the additional duty leviable in the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51/1975) as the case may be, has already been paid. 6. In these proceedings, there is no dispute that the inputs had been received on nil duty gate passes. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel products such as mild steel round bars, flats, angles, etc. The period involved is prior to 1-3-1986 and the applicable Tariff Item was Item No. 28 of the old Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Tribunal in the case of IAC Ltd. v. CCE, Bombay reported in 1988 (35) E.L.T. 142 (Tribunal). The Tribunal had observed that the appropriate duty would include nil duty. 8. We find that subsequently the notification had been amended and it had been specifically provided that if the inputs were otherwise exempted or were cleared on nil rate of duty, then benefit under that notification will not be available. Ld. Consultant submitted that this amendment is an amending Notification No. 66/89-C.E., dated 1-3-1989, no such condition was in the notification during the relevant time and no retrospective effect to the disadvantage of the assessee could be given to such an amending notification. 9. Ld. SDR has referred to the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
