9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 535X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1998 to the respondents. 2. The learned SDR has contended that the benefit of the above said notification after amendment could not be allowed to the respondents, although they as 100% EOU procured HSD/FO, on the basis of CT-3 certificate issued by the Superintendent, EOU Range, as the approval of the Commissioner of Customs on the recommendation of the Development Commissioner was required to be taken by them before procuring the same. Since the respondents did not take such an approval, they are liable to pay the central excise duty of Rs. 1,52,966/- on the HSD/FO procured by them during the period 15-9-1998 to 30-11-1998 and the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 3. The learned Counsel, on the other hand, has reiterated the cor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Rules. But this Notification was admittedly amended vide Notification No. 31/98-C.E., dated 15-9-1998 when a new provision 3(b) was inserted in Annexure I to the said Notification which reads as under : 3B. Fuel, lubricants and consumables for goods specified at items 3 and 3A, as approved by the Commissioner of Customs on the recommendation of the Development Commissioner. From the bare reading of this new added provision conjointly with the Notification, it is quite evident that HSD/FO could be, no doubt, procured duty free by the respondents, but the approval of the Commissioner of Customs on the recommendation of the Development Commissioner was required to be taken by them after 15-9-1998 - the date when this new provision was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the amending Notification and as such after the amendment, the approval of the Commissioner of Customs was essential for availing the benefit of the Notification. The law laid down in the case of Shamken Spinners Ltd. v. C.C.E., Lucknow, supra cited by the Counsel is not attracted to the case of the respondents. In that case, benefit of exemption Notification No. 57/94, dated 1-3-1994 for exemption of duty on HSD oil was sought to be denied to 100% EOU, on the ground that such goods were neither consumable nor a raw material, but the Tribunal did not accept this ground and allowed the benefit of notification, whereas such is not the position in the present case. 5. Having failed to get the approval of the Commissioner of Customs on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
