9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (1) TMI 249X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from so much of duty as had been paid on any of the inputs utilised by the manufacturer subject to the condition that the procedure in the Appendix to the notification was followed. The assessee took the benefit of the notification in respect of the malt extract manufactured and cleared to it on payment of duty by two manufacturers, M/s. Barmalt India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Malt Company. 2. The question as to whether malt extract was entitled to the benefit of concessional rate of duty provided in Notification 55/75 had been in dispute. By its judgement the Delhi High Court held that malt extract was entitled to the benefit of the notification. Notification 201/79 appendix contained a provision that if the duty paid on inputs of which credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r goods would have to be reversed. It also noted that incidence of duty paid on the malt extract has been passed on the buyers by Barmalt India Pvt. Ltd. except in the case of M/s. HMM Limited with which we are not concerned. The Court concluded the matter by ordering as follows : So far as Civil appeal No. 960/86 is concerned we direct - in view of the admitted fact that it has passed on the burden of duty to its purchasers - that Barmalt should refund to the State the amount received by them by way of refund (pursuant to the impugned judgement of the Delhi High Court) except a sum of Rs. 8 lakhs. In view of the fact HMM Limited is now before us and it has admittedly received the said sum of Rs. 8 lakhs from Barmalt, HMM Limited is dire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the appeal admit that while Section 11A cannot be utilised to recover the credit there is no time limit for the operation of the notification itself or in Rule 56A, the departmental representative emphasised the applicability of Notification 207/79 contained that the right of the manufacturer to take credit on the inputs and its application to repay the credit to the extent of reduced duty and that to such recovery accrued to the department, the moment credit to the extent of reduced duty and that to such recovery accrued to the department, the moment credit was taken. This is sought to be rebutted by the Advocate for the respondent on the ground that the notice itself was issued after the notification was rescinded and that the inchiate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e decision of the Gujarat High Court in Deepak Vegatable Oil Industries Ltd. v. U.O.I. 1991 (52) E.L.T. 222; Madras High Court in Madras Vanaspati Ltd. v. Union of India 1992 (61) E.L.T. 6, are relevant in this regard. Each of them considered the effect of repeal of a notification issued uonder Rule 57K which had permitted manufacturer of vanaspati to take money credit, if they utilised specified minor oils in its manufacture. The department had taken the stand that the credit taken could not be utilised towards payment of duty on vanaspati, when the notification had been repealed after credit was taken, but before payment of duty. Each of the High Courts rejected this contention, on the view that since the right to take credit had accr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
