9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (1) TMI 319X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t i.e. 2200 hours on 29-2-2000 i.e. on budget day. 2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants were granted permission by the Commissioner of Central Excise for removal of the goods on pre-budget/budget day subject to the condition that they would pay enhanced rate of duty on clearance after 1200 hours on 29-2-2000. The appellant filed a refund claim of Rs. 3,94,352/- on 3-10-2000 under Rule 224(2) and 224(2A) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 for duty debited under protest over and above duty at concessional rate of 8% ad valorem under Notification No.5/99-C.E. dated 28-2-1999 on clearance made by them after 1200 hours on the budget day i.e. 29-2-2000. Both the authorities below rejected the refund clai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Bench of this Tribunal in Vikrant Tyres v. CCE, Banagalore [2003 (158) E.L.T. 251 (Tri. - LB)]. He submits that in this case, the appellants furnished the undertaking for clearance of goods on pre-budget day and budget day and therefore, it is squarely covered under Rule 224. He further, submits that on the basis of undertaking the appellant was allowed to clear the goods as per the condition as prescribed under the said Rules. He also relied upon the Manglam Cement v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur [1999 (105) E.L.T. 463]. 5. In a rejoinder the learned advocate submits that in this case, there is no enhancement of duty, in other words, it is a case wherein the concessional rate of duty was withdrawn and therefore the Larger Ben ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the budget, which they otherwise legally could not do because of the restriction imposed on the removal by Rule 224(2), the appellants could not raise protest while making payment of differential duty. The doctrine of estoppel stands in their way, to raise such a protest. They are legally debarred from disputing their liability, under the said. doctrine, for payment of enhanced duty on the ground that the notification enhancing the duty was issued on the date subsequent to their removal of the goods i.e. on 1-3-2000. The removal of the goods by them has to be related to that date (1-3-2000) on which they could only remove the goods from the factory, in view of the complete ban imposed, under Rule 224(2) on such removal. They cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ser and the assessee cleared those goods on the eve of the budget and thereafter they were called upon to the duty in terms of the undertaking furnished by them under Rule 224(2A). Since no special duty existed on the goods at the time of removal, any undertaking given by them under the said Rule, was not of any help to the Revenue for claiming the duty. It was under these circumstances, the Bench after commenting on the interpretation and scope of Section 4 of the Provisional Collection of Taxes and Rule 224(2A), came to the conclusion thai special duty could be claimed only after the midnight hours of the date of budget onwards and not prior to that. But such is not the situation in the instant case, in the light of facts and circumstance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
