9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (7) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble by the petitioner concern under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The contents of the above noted notification are as under : "MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Revenue) NOTIFICATION Central Excises New Delhi , the 24th April, 1962 G.S.R. 531. - In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule(l) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, as in force in India and as applied to the State of Pondicherry, the Central Government hereby exempts rayon or artificial silk fabrics falling under Item No. 22 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) and specified in column (2) of the Table hereto annexed from so much of the duty as is mentioned in the corresponding entry in column ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only engaged in dyeing and printing rayon and artificial silk fabrics which admittedly they were doing with the help of steam, they were neither liable nor did they pay any excise duty till the issuance of notification Annexure P-3. According to the petitioner, it was for the first time vice Annexure P-3 that the expression 'processed' was defined to include all processes which are ordinarily carried on with the aid of power or steam. Its specific case is that it was not engaged in the processing of rayon or artificial silk fabrics with the aid of power. 3. On March 8, 1964, respondent No. 1, Deputy Superintendent, Central Excise, Amritsar, issued a demand notice to the petitioner concern for payment of Rs. 53,179.28 on account of excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orities is that though notification, Annexure P-3, purports to have been issued by way of an amendment of notification Annexure P-1, yet the former is only a clarification of the later and the case of the petitioner is governed by Rule 10(a) of the Central Excise Rules so far as the question of limitation is concerned. It is also explained in reply to the assertions made by the petitioner in paragraph 13 of the petition disclosing differential or discriminatory treatment meted out to it that the cases referred to by the petitioner were entirely on different facts and were not similar to those of the petitioner. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at some length, I do not find any merit in the stand taken by the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ose rayon and artificial silk fabrics which were processed with the aid of power or goods which had either been dyed or printed without the aid of power or with steam, were not considered to be processed fabrics. It was this situation which necessitated the issuance of Annexure P-3 thereby to include within the scope of 'processed fabrics', rayon and artificial silk fabrics which hen been dyed or printed with the aid of steam. If that were not so, then the issuance of Annexure P-3 is totally meaningless. The submission of Mr. Brar, learned counsel for the respondent authorities that this notification is only by way of an explanation or clarification, carries no conviction for the reasons, firstly, that the notification itself reads that it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
