9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (7) TMI 309X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vailable in the case of appellant who was availing Modvat credit on inputs. The Assistant Collector directed provisional assessment on that basis. Subsequently three show cause notices dated 6-11-1989, 18-4-1990 and 12-9-1990 were issued stating that the notification was not applicable and proposing demand of differential duty calculated without the benefit of the partial exemption. The notices were resisted by the appellant. However, the Assistant Collector confirmed the demands and his orders were confirmed by a common order passed by the Collector (Appeals). This order has led to Appeals No. E/971/92-C and E/1123/92-C. Apparently on the direction of the Assistant Collector that demand for succeeding period should be made based on the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .00, 3305.90, 3307.00, 4005.10, 4006.10, 4008.21 and 9605.10." Reading of S. No. 4(iii) of the annexure to the notification will show that goods falling under Heading 4005.00 were not covered by the notification and the benefit of the exemption was not available originally. The notification underwent several amendments many of which are not relevant for our present purpose. 4. Amendment No. 96/89, dated 1-3-1989 introduced consequent to the Budget, brought about extensive changes in the notification and replaced the annexure entirely. Under S. No. (1), (2) and (3) of the new annexure, various goods under various headings, sub-headings and certain specified goods were covered specifically by the notification. S. No. 4 followed the old sc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ake effect w.e.f. 1-4-1989 but a day before 1-4-1989 i.e. 31-3-1989, the original notification was further amended by Notification 113/89 by omitting sub-heading 4005.00 in item (iii) of S. No. 4 of the annexure. It is clear that the incorporation of Chapter Heading 4005 in S. No. 4 of the annexure by Notification 96/89 was unnecessary in view of the reference to sub-heading 4005.00 in clause (iii). The logical way of removing the redundancy was to retain the Chapter Heading Number and omitting the sub-heading number. That was what was (sic.) done by Notification 113/89. 5. As Notification 175/86 stood as amended by various Notifications including the Notification 113/89, goods covered by Chapter Heading 40.05 or sub-heading 4005.00 would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... correct position is as set out in the further clarification in Trade Notice No. 76/80. What is more significant is that the appellant is not within the jurisdiction of the Bombay Collectorate but is within the jurisdiction of the Pune Collectorate. The earlier Trade Notice issued by the Bombay Collectorate relied upon by the assessee proceeds entirely on the basis of the deletion of sub-heading 4005.00 in item (iii) of S. No. 4 of the annexure to the Notification and without any reference to the presence of Heading 4005 in clause (ii) of S. No. 4 of the annexure to the Notification. 7. In the above circumstances, we are in agreement with the view taken by the lower authorities that the excisable product manufactured by the appellant would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
