9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (12) TMI 393X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learances for exemption mentioned in the said Notification and consequently, did not file any Classification List. 2. It, however, came to the notice of the concerned Preventive Officers of the Commissionerate that the appellants had been only clearing the excisable goods for home-consumption, but had also cleared the goods for export to Nepal and Bhutan during the relevant period from 1-4-1986 to 31-3-1987. For export to Nepal and Bhutan, duty is required to be paid by any manufacturer of excisable goods and there is no exemption from duty at all inasmuch as under Indo-Nepal Treaty of Trade and Transit, rebate of duty is given to His Majesty, Government of Nepal, equivalent to the duty of excise leviable on the goods manufactured in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, Shri N. Mookherjee has submitted that the classification of the product under Tariff Heading 3801.20 leviable to duty @15% ad valorem is not correct. He submits that the correct classification should be under Tariff Heading 3801.10 relating to insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, weedicides and pesticides which carry a nil rate of duty. We reject the contention of the learned Advocate because Phenyle, as we understand it, does not relate to the Tariff Sub-Heading 3801.10. It is essentially a Cleaning Agent and in the process, it might be repelling and even killing some germs. Therefore, at best, it can be called as germicides. In support of his aforesaid contention, Shri Mookerjee, learned Advocate has also drawn our attention to a Jud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earances to Nepal and Bhutan and clearances for home-consumption, as cum-duty prices and therefore, in order to arrive at the value under Section 4 of the Act, the deduction of excise duty has to be made and then the assessable value has to be arrived at. 9. Learned Advocate, however, points out that another plea taken by the appellants before the adjudicating authority, namely that Modvat Credit of Duty paid on inputs utilised in the manufacture of Phenyle, has been denied to the appellants on the ground that they were not following the Modvat Credit Procedure during the relevant time. 10. After having heard both sides, we agree with the learned Advocate that they would be entitled to the benefit of Modvat Credit of duty paid on inputs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
