9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 379X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .e. Notification No. 1/93 rate. A show cause notice was served on them as to why differential duty should not be demanded for the clearances during the said period, under the provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. After 16-3-95, since the tariff sub-heading 5601.00 under which cigarette filter rod was classified, was restructured into further sub-headings viz. 5601.10, 5601.21, 5601.22, 5601.29 and 5601.30 and according to this restructuring of the tariff cigarette filter rod were to be classified under sub-heading 5601.22. Since sub-heading 5601.22 was not one of the prescribed sub-headings for specific goods permissible and covered by Notification No. 1/93, they came to be covered under the said notification only after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dings and out of them the amending notification as permitted the goods falling under these headings were made eligible for the concession of Notification 1/93. Thereafter he held there was implicit has been made explicit by amending notification. It is, therefore, clarificatory in nature and would be having a retrospective effect, as held by the Tribunal in the case of Apex Steel (P) Ltd. (supra). He also agreed with the arguments put forth by the Respondents that the goods of Chapter 56.01 were never excluded from the ambit of Notification 1/93 and cigarette filter rods continued to remain under Chapter Heading 56.01 before and after restructuring of the tariff and amending the notification. Therefore, he did not uphold the Department cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Chapter sub-heading 5601.22 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 were not eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 1/93, dated 28-2-93 during the period from 16-3-95 to 25-5-95. (d) The Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to note that the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case, reported in AIR 1976 SC 313-321 had, inter alia, held that in a taxing statute one has to look at what is clearly stated and there is no room for any intendment. In the same case, Hon ble Supreme Court had further ruled that there is no equity nor any presumption about a tax and one can only took fairly at the language used. (e) Further, Hon ble Supreme Court in the case, reported in AIR 73 SC 1214-18, had ruled that it is not permissible for the courts to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 93/95, dated 26-5-95. Cigarette filter rods were exigible before and after restructuring of the Schedule. (b) The question that arises in this case, when does a proposal to amend the Tariff entry resulting in shifting of the exigible goods classification would come in force. In view of declaration made under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931. It is well settled by the Apex Court vide its decision in the case of Pieco Electronics Electrical Ltd. v. CCE, Pune [1996 (87) E.L.T. 577 (S.C.)] which has been followed by the Tribunal. The Apex Court by this decision has ruled as follows - ... the Bill proposing imposition or increase of duties of Customs or Excise will have immediate effect only if a declaration had been ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
