1997 (11) TMI 333

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... i A.R. Madhav Rao, Advocate, for the Appellants. Shri S. Nunthuk, JDR, for the Respondents. [Order per : Shiben K. Dhar, Member (T)]. The short question that calls for determination in both these appeals is whether the expression duty of excise leviable would include a situation when inputs have been removed after availing exemption. 2. Arguing for the assessee ld. Advocate submits .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Patna v. Usha Martin Industries as reported in 1997 (94) E.L.T. 460 wherein para 12, the Hon ble Apex Court made a distinction between exemption of duty paid at the appropriate rate and duty paid . He also cites the case of Andhra Re-rolling Works v. UOI 1986 (25) E.L.T. 3. 4. We have heard both sides. Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Usha Martin Industries made a distinction between the ex .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dustries where it was held that the words already paid in the notification cannot be delinked from other words because the preceding words are appropriate rate and cannot be ignored. Similarly here the payment of duty cannot be delinked from the expression duty of excise or additional excise duty leviable used in Notification 208/83. 5. In view of this, we reject the Revenue appeal in case o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X