9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 500X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hs has also been imposed. 2. Shri S.K. Bagaria, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the benefit of these two notifications have been denied by the adjudicating authority on the ground that inputs out of which plastic containers were manufactured have been cleared after availing full exemption from duty under Notification No. 203/92-Cus. Accordingly, he has held that the two conditions of the notifications in question i.e. duty of excise or the additional duty had already been paid on the inputs and no credit of such duty was availed under Rule 57A, are not satisfied. The Commissioner has observed that as the inputs have been cleared under an exemption notification, it cannot be said that the duty of excise or the additi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1993 (66) E.L.T. 81 - Ajit Metal v. C.C.E. In view of the foregoing he submits that the appellants cannot be said to have not satisfied the conditions of Notification No. 14/92 and 15/92 and the exemption cannot be denied to them. 3. Shri Bagaria further submits that apart from the foregoing decisions, the position has been repeatedly clarified in the various circulars/trade notices issued by the Central Board of Excise Customs or different Central Excise Commissionerates. He draws the attention of the Bench to the following circulars :- (i) Circular bearing No. 125/36/95-CX., dated 15-5-1995 issued by the Central Board of Excise Customs - page 58 (ii) Circular bearing F. No. 88/1/92-CX. 3 (Pt. 1), dated 5-8-1992 issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and there were number of decisions in their favour. He submits that this action on the part of the appellants cannot be attributed to any suppression, mis-statement, fraud or collusion justifying invocation of longer period of limitation. He refers to number of decisions to support his above arguments. In these circumstances he prays for setting aside the order confirming demand of duty and levying penalty. 6. Shri R.K. Roy, ld. JDR has appeared on behalf of the respondents and reiterated the reasoning of the adjudicating authority. 7. After hearing both the sides and after going through the impugned order we find that the issue is no more res-integra and has been settled in favour of the appellants by the Apex Court s decision in the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
