9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (3) TMI 3X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the expression " duty of excise by clause (b) of s. 280ZD(6) - HC order confirmed - as per the scheme, application of the assessee is time barred X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of excise chargeable under the Excise Act on various articles including cement was levied. On the excess clearance of cement made during the concerned year over and above the quantity cleared in the base year, the appellant company applied for the grant of tax credit certificate to the concerned authority under the Scheme for an amount calculated at the rate of 25% of the entire amount of duty of excise paid by it, that is to say, 25% of the basic excise duty levied under the Excise Act at ₹ 23.60 per tonne plus the amount of special excise duty paid by it under S. 80 of the Finance Act. The concerned authority granted tax credit certificate only in respect of the Central Excise Duty levied under the Excise Act, taking the view that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions of sub-clauses (3) and (4) of S. 80 of the Finance Act, the special excise duty leviable thereunder should be regarded as duty of excise leviable under the Excise Act. It is not possible to accept this contention. It is true that the expression " leviable " is an expression of wide import and includes stages of quantification and recovery of the duty but in the context in which that expression has been used in clause (b) of sub-s. (6) of S. 280ZD, it is clear that it has been used in the sense of chargeability of the duty. In other words, the duty of excise in respect whereof tax credit is available would be in respect of such duty of excise as is chargeable under the Excise Act and clearly the special excise duty in respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the question of limitation but on this aspect, the admitted facts are that the first application for tax credit certificate was made by the appellant on June 24, 1966, and the same had been disposed of in December, 1966. Thereafter a supplementary application was made on August 26, 1967, which was obviously barred by limitation as per para. 5.2 of the Scheme. Further, even the power to condone delay conferred on the Central Authority under para. 5.3 would not cover the appellant's case, for, under that provision, a delay for a period not exceeding 60 days could alone be condoned. Counsel, however, urged that the delay in filing the supplementary application ought to have been condoned having regard to the trade notice that had been is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
