9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (10) TMI 501X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Domestic Tariff Area or the Additional Duty of Excise is exempted under Notification No. 55/91-C.E., dated 25-7-91. 2. Shri Atul Dikshit, learned SDR, submitted that M/s. Ginni Filaments Ltd., a 100% E.O.U., manufacture Cotton Yarn and P.V. Synthetic Yarn; that a show cause notice was issued to them for demanding Additional Duty of Excise in respect of clearances effected by them during the month of March, 2000; that the Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise under the Adjudication Order No. 169/2000, dated 10-8-2000 confirmed the demand denying the benefit of Notification No. 55/91-C.E.; that however, the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned order allowed the appeal filed by the Respondents relying upon the decision in the case of CCE, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t also held that the expression Any other Law for the time being in force used in Notification No. 11/2000-C.E. is of wide amplitude, and therefore, it would take within its fold the 1978 Act and the logical consequence and issuance of notification dated 1-3-2000 is that the petitioners are liable to pay Basic Excise duty along with Additional Excise duty in respect of clearances made to D.T.A. The learned SDR, further, mentioned that the Appellate Tribunal in the case of M/s. Parasrampuria International v. CCE, Indore, vide Final Order No. 184/2002, dated 17-7-2002 [2003 (152) E.L.T. 142 (Tribunal)] has denied the benefit of Notification No. 55/91 to the Appellants therein following the judgment of the Punjab Haryana High Court. 3. O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CCE v. Dhiren Chemical Industries, 2002 (139) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) wherein it has been held that regardless of the interpretation that has been placed by the Supreme Court, if there are circulars which have been issued by the Central Board of Excise Customs which place a different interpretation, that interpretation will be binding on the Revenue. The learned Sr. Counsel also mentioned that the similar views were reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of CCE v. Dhiren Chemical Industries, 2002 (143) E.L.T. 19 (S.C.). He, therefore, contended that as Circular dated 20-3-98 was still in existence in March, 2000 the Respondents are not liable to pay Additional Duty of Excise. 4. In reply ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by which the exemption under Notification No. 8/97 was in excess of an amount equal to the aggregate of the duties of excise leviable under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act or under any other law for the time being in force clearly goes to show that w.e.f. 1-3-2000 exemption was available to the goods manufactured and cleared by a 100% E.O.U. to the Domestic Tariff Area which is in excess of aggregate of all the duties leviable under Central Excise Act or under any other law for the time being in force. The Respondents are claiming the benefit of exemption from Additional Excise duty under Notification No. 55/91 which reads as under : - In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5A of the Central Excises and Sal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
