1998 (1) TMI 163

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ree Appeals listed above raise identical issues for consideration and arise from the common Order-in-Appeal dated 29-12-1994 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad. By the said order the Collector (Appeals) upheld the Order-in-Original passed by the Asstt. Collector disallowing the refund claim of the present appellants totalling Rs. 4,84,914.32. The issue relates to availm .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Collector rejected the refund claim on the ground that the same was not in accordance with the provisions of Notification 136/88, dated 31-3-1988. 3. Ld. Advocate submitted that Rule 57B clearly allowed a notional higher credit of duty on inputs received from SSI units at the rate of duty otherwise applicable. She submitted that the use of non-obstante clause in the opening part of Rule 57B cle .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... per cent ad valorem or at the rate of duty otherwise applicable but for the said Notification, whichever was less. He submitted that normally the notional credit would be 5 per cent of the assessable value as shown in the duty paying documents of a SSI unit from where the raw material (input) is received. Having regard to this the appellants would not be entitled to avail the notional higher cred .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... per the rules of interpretation the provisions with a non-obstante clause will prevail over the provisions of the clause sought to be excluded as well as any notification issued under that clause. In that case Notification 177/86 was issued in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 57A. In the instant case we find that what is in dispute are the provisions of paragraph 5 of Notification No. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n, whichever was less. We find that the appellants in this case had taken notional higher credit at full rate of duty which was not permissible under Notification 175/86 as amended. Having regard to the view we have taken that the non-obstante clause in Rule 57B does not extend to notifications issued under Rule 8, we find no infirmity in the impunged order. 6. In the result we uphold the Order- .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X