9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. This appeal is filed by the appellants against the Order-in-Appeal Nos. 69-72/2002 (H-III)-C.E., dated 30-8-2002, passed by the Commissioner of Customs Central Excise (Appeals), Hyderabad. 2. The short point involved in this case is whether the restriction on the quantum of credit imposed by Notification No. 14/97, dated 3-5-97 amending Notification No. 5/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that the restriction of Notification No. 5/97-C.E. not being applicable before 2-6-1998 as per the priviso introduced would itself indicate that the restriction as per the Notification No. 14/97-C.E. is not applicable to credit under Rule 57B. He further said that Rule 57B begins with a non obstante clause and this rules out the application of Rule 57A. 6. We have gone through the records ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jindal Polyster [2001 (137) E.L.T. 355] is considered. It is seen that the Bench had read the Rule 57B(1) before the amendments made to it by the Notification No. 21/98-C.E. (N.T.), dated 2-6-98, i.e. in absence of the proviso clause to Rule 57B(1) and 95% restriction of the specified duty paid. The amendment of 2-6-98 have categorically brought out the intent manifest by inserting the proviso cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e out in these decisions relied upon by the DR, to conclude that restrictions imposed by notification under Rule 57A(3) would automatically apply, especially after the amendments of 2-6-98 by Notification 21/98-C.E. (N.T) when parent Rule 57A(3) proviso introduced and is to be read with the non obstante clause. If such a cap as by Revenue was at all required, the same should have been incorporated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
