9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (5) TMI 195X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s No. (vi) to the Notification No. 283/82, dated 27-11-1982 which goes against provisions of the said Notification itself while passing the instant order? 2. In order to appreciate the question of law, we give below the facts as set out in the aforesaid order of the Tribunal :- The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of steel ingots classifiable under the erstwhile Tariff Item 26. 2. Production incentive under Rule 56AA of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was extended to the said goods in terms of Notification No. 283/82-C.E., dated 27-11-1982, vide Serial No. 2 of Table A appended to the said Notification subject to the conditions specified therein. 3. The appellants vide their application dated 24-7-1983 claimed the incenti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vi) of Notification 283/82, dated 27-11-82 is given in Paras 10 and 11 of the said Order of the Tribunal. For better appreciation, we reproduce below the same :- 10. The short point of dispute in the said appeal revolves around the Condition No. (vi) of Notification No. 283/82-C.E., dated 27-11-1982. For better appreciation of the same, we reproduce the said Condition as follows :- (vi) For determining the clearances of the specified goods mentioned against the serial numbers 21, 22, 23 and 24 of the said Table A (hereafter in this clause referred to as the said specified goods) in respect of the base period or the incentive period, the quantity of the said specified goods received in the factory from outside during the base period or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to the raw materials used in the manufacture of such specified goods. As rightly contended by the appellants, such an interpretation would mean very purpose of the Incentive Notification as the same is bound to result in the negative excess production. If such an interpretation is adopted, the production would invariably in almost all the cases become (sic) and futile. This interpretation as such cannot (sic) set aside the impugned order (sic) appellant appeal with consequential relief. 4. Ld. JDR, Shri S.N. Ghosh has submitted that the Tribunal has in plain terms constructs the Condition No. (vi) of Notification 283/82-C.E., dated 27-11-1982 - interpretation of Notification plainly raises a question of law and he, therefore, submits t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
