9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (12) TMI 485X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tention to the reasons given therein. Elaborating the same he said that after the new Tariff was introduced in 1986, Government of India introduced an act known as Central Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Act, 1986 which was passed and this had the effect of continuing the effective rate of duty in respect of the Tariff Items covered by the Notification 75/84 as per Notification (78/86). 3. In this Notification, Chapter 27 was mentioned in the opening paragraph; But subsequently a Notification was issued viz. 359/86, dated 27-6-1986 substituting Chapters 22 or 27 or 29 for the words in Chapter 22 or 27". They have filed the application because the statutory provisions contained in the aforesaid Act and the effect thereof are re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r on, however, the impugned show cause notice was issued on the ground that the aforesaid Notification covered only Chapter 27 and not Chapter 29 and, therefore, they were liable to pay the duty demanded. 7. The appellants agreed that the goods were classifiable under Chapter 29; but their contention was that the duty amount in question was still not demandable. 8. As a matter of fact, at one stage both sides had considered that the goods were classifiable under Chapter 27 whereas they were actually classifiable under Chapter 29. Therefore, both had erred. 9. Subsequently, the Department has erred in not taking cognizance of the statutory provisions of the Central Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Act, 1986, which had the eff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -1986 was included at Sl. No. 43 and this Notification in turn refers to the Notification No. 75/84 and Notification 75/84 is one of the Notifications mentioned in Notification 78/86. 11. It was his submission that actually, the Notification 359/86 was a clarificatory Notification and this has become evident from the letter of the Government. 12. Learned DR drew attention to the impugned order and reiterated the views contained therein. He, however, argued that this point was not raised before the authorities below, therefore, they have not passed any order with reference to the same and this aspect may be kept in view. 13. We have considered the above submissions. We observe that the learned Counsel s pleadings have a strong force. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ifications covered under the aforesaid Act and includes Sl. No. 43 the Notification number 359/86. 15. The point taken up by the learned DR that this issue was not raised before the authorities below does not make any difference in view of the statutory provisions read with the above Notifications because it is the correct position in law which has to be taken into account. 16. Before parting, however, we may mention that although for the purpose of this particular case, it is enough if the goods were classifiable under Chapter 29 in view of the aforesaid Notifications but we observe that the show cause notice and the orders of the authorities below refer to the Heading and Sub-heading as 2901.90. We find in this connection that Heading ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
