9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 723X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and P.K. Ghosh, Consultants, for the Appellant. Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - The short point involved in the present appeal is as to whether the appellants who were enjoying the benefit of the Notification No. 231/85-C.E., dated 11-11-1985, would continue to do so after 1-4-1994. The said Notification was amended by another ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same was actually rescinded. Shri Chattopadhyay, learned Consultant further contends that the said item i.e. Rubber Tubes and Tyres, falling under 40.13, is also a specified item in Annexure to Notification No. 1/93. However, the benefit of Notification No. 1/93 could not be availed by them as the said item was carrying specific rate of duty. Had it been ad valorem rate of duty, they would have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the learned S.D.R. Notification No. 25/94-C.E. brought the amendment to Notification No. 231/85-C.E., bringing the life of the said Notification to an end as on 31-3-1994. The very effect of the amendment for the Notification by addition of Explanation-4 was to make the Notification inoperative and without force after 31-3-1994. Inasmuch as the Notification was actually inactive after 31-3-1994 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
