9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (8) TMI 301X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts had removed the goods without payment of duty. The duty is demanded for the period 1994-95 and the show cause notice is dated 12-6-1996. 2. The learned Advocate for the appellants has pleaded that for the purpose of the present proceedings, he will not be pressing his claim for assessment of the goods under Tariff Heading 84.24 read with Notification 46/94, in case the appellant is allowed the benefit of Modvat credit which has been allowed by this Bench of the Tribunal in various other cases when the duty has been demanded subsequently by reason of change in classification or otherwise. He has pleaded that since the duty is now demanded, the appellants will also be eligible to the abatement of duty in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(ii). He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. In the present case, it is a finished product, i.e. the pipes in question which are the subject matter of the demand of duty, provisions of Rule 57E could have been invoked only in respect of inputs which have been used in the manufacture in case the duty has been demanded subsequent to clearance at the manufacturers end from where the appellants received the same. We, therefore, hold that the Iearned lower authority prima facie mis-directed himself in this regard. 5. In regard to the abatements under Rule 4(4)(d)(ii). we find that this Bench of the Tribunal following the ratio of the First Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Pawan Tyres reported in 1996 (85) ELT 154 has been allowing of these abatements. Since some duty may be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct to the appellants complying with the other requirements of the other rules for Modvat purpose. 8. So far as the abatements of duty which is now demanded is concerned, we observe that the issue now stands settled by the ratio of the decision of the First Bench of the Tribunal which considered the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Bata India reported in 1996 (84) E.L.T. 164, that in case the duty is demanded subsequent to the clearance of the goods, since this duty is now held to be payable in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(ii), the abatements in respect of the same would have to be allowed from the sale price. This view, we have taken in a number of decisions. 9. In the above view of the matter, therefore, we hold that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
