Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2003 (3) TMI 569

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... /93. On this date, notification 19/94 was issued, inserting in the table to the notification 1/93 goods in sub-headings 54.10 and 54.03 of the Tariff. As a result, manufacturers of crimped and textured yarn became entitled to the notification. Various manufacturers of these products including among other respondents to these appeals by the Commissioner or the appellants themselves, filed declarations consequent on this notice signifying their intention to avail of the exemption. They thereafter proceeded to avail of the exemption. The declarations by the manufacturers were filed on date subsequent to 25-4-1998. Notices were issued by the department to all such manufacturers. The notices proceeded on the basis that the first clearance to the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ble to avail of the Modvat credit, the concession contained in paragraph 1(a)(i) was not available. He therefore held that clearances made prior to 20th May, 1994 cannot be included in the value of clearances for the purposes of notification. He therefore allowed the appeals. 3. By another order passed on 11-4-1997, another Commissioner (Appeals), dealing with the same contentions, held that it is the date on which the goods were notified that would count for determining the clearances. The department has come up in appeal against the order dated 24th September, 1996 of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the assessees against the second. 4. The contention of the assessees is that it is a date on which they opted for the notification that sh .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... order up to value of Rs. 75/-. In Ramakrishna Engg. Works v. CCE - 1996 (83) E.L.T. 346, the Larger Bench of the Tribunal said that the stress in the notifications was on the reckoning of clearances on or after 1st April in any financial year. No doubt, the issue in these appeals related to clearances of more than one item. However the emphasis on the words first clearances commencing from clearances from 1st April in these decisions cannot be ignored. It is also to be noted that the notification takes effect from the date on which it is published in the Official Gazette. This is the ratio of the Supreme Court s judgment in UOI v. Ganesh Das Bhojraj - 2000 (116) E.L.T. 431. Therefore the amendment to the notification 1/93 became effective .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the clearances that were made on payment of full duty, they are not clearances in terms of this paragraph. This argument is clearly unacceptable. Let us consider an example. An exemption notification is published on 15th April. That notification comes to be known, and hence availed of, by a manufacturer of this commodity only on 25th April. Therefore the clearances that the manufacturer made between the 15th and 25th April are clearances at the full rate of duty; the manufacturer at that time had no idea that they were covered by exemption. Does it follow from this that the benefit of the exemption would not be available to the goods cleared between 15th 25th April? The answer is clearly and emphatically in the negative. It is not the int .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... not to be covered by it. None of the notifications prior to this has considered this provision. In CCE, Coimbatore v. Nandi Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd - 2002 (79) ECC 314, the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal approved, without any further reasoning, the view expressed by the Commissioner (Appeals) that in view of the clause for option, the manufacturer of cotton yarn could not have opted for availing of the notification on 25-4-1994, when that commodity became entitled to the exemption because he did not come to know of it. The reasoning of the Commissioner (Appeals) fallaciously proceeds on the assumption that the manufacturer is required to avail of the notification before it is applicable. That is not the correct position. 10. For these seve .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates