9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1844X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 96ZQ of the Rules. - It is not even necessary to go into this question because of a simple reason. The vires of the aforesaid Rule was challenged before the Madras High Court in Beauty Dyers v. Union of India [2001 (12) TMI 95 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS] and the High Court held the said Rule to be ultravires the erstwhile Section 3A of the Act. Special leave petition was preferred by the Union of India against the said judgment which was dismissed by this Court. The judgment is reported by the Madras High Court in Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/s. Entex Pvt. Ltd. – [2015 (9) TMI 827 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]. - It becomes clear that the respondent was not supposed to pay any duty, more so, when the entire exercise was revenue neut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d from 06.11.1999 to 14.11.1999, from 10.12.1999 to 18.12.1999 and 11.02.2000 to 19.02.2000 (2) on the Stenter of PRIMATEX for the period from 10.01.2000 to 18.1.2000. Sub-rule (7) of the Rule 96ZQ of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules') as it existed prior to 01.03.2000 provides that when an independent processor does not produces or manufactures the processed fabrics specified in sub-Rule (1) during any continuous period of not less than 7 days and wishes to claim abatement under sub-Section (3) of Section 3A of the Act, the abatement will be allowed subject to the fulfillment of the conditions prescribed in the said rules. The abatement of duty under consideration in respect of Stenter of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, before claiming any rebate. On that basis, it was argued that since no such duty was paid in the first instance, the respondent was not entitled to any rebate. It is not even necessary to go into this question because of a simple reason. The vires of the aforesaid Rule was challenged before the Madras High Court in Beauty Dyers v. Union of India [2004 (166) ELT 27(Mad.) and the High Court held the said Rule to be ultravires the erstwhile Section 3A of the Act. Special leave petition was preferred by the Union of India against the said judgment which was dismissed by this Court. The judgment is reported by the Madras High Court in Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/s. Entex Pvt. Ltd. [ 2015-TIOL-2123-HC-MAD-CX ]. From the aforesa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
