9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 303X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as confirmed against the appellants after denying the benefit of Notification on the ground that they had not followed the procedure as laid down under the Central Excise (Removal of goods at concessional rate of duty for the manufacture of excisable goods) Rules, 2001. The contention of the appellants is that, they cleared Naphtha to M/s Indian Farmers Fertilizer Co-operative Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as IFFCO ) for use in the manufacture of fertilizer under Notification without payment of duty. The procedure under Chapter X was to be followed for clearance of the Naphtha under the Notification No. 3/2001-C.E.; and this procedure was changed under the new Rules w.e.f. 1-7-2001. The contention is that, earlier Naphtha was cleared again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s issued on subsequent date is effective from the date of application. The contention is that, in the present case as the IFFCO made an application on 17th July, 2001 seeking permission to receive Naphtha under concessional rate, the permission was subsequently granted, therefore, the permission is effective from the date of application. 4. The contention of the Revenue is that, the appellants are the manufacturer of Naphtha and cleared the same without payment of duty on 27th July, 2001 and as per the Rules, 2001, the goods can be cleared without payment of duty under Notification only against the proforma as countersigned by the competent officer having jurisdiction over the recipient factory. In the present case, the goods were cleared ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to ambiguous understanding of the revised procedure brought about by the new system, as has been contended by Noticee Company. The Noticee Company also reminds me of Hon ble Tribunal s decision in the case of M/s Electronics Components Ltd. v. CCE, Calcutta-II. I have gone through this decision. It has, inter alia, been held that denial of benefits on account of minute technical discrepancies was not justified since during the initial period of transition, their could be a period of confusion, which might have resulted in certain technical lapses during the transitional period. Therefore, I feel that the denial of substantive claim of concessional rate of duty to the consignments of Naptha, in question, in the present, may not be valid. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
