9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (8) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was exempted from duty by Notification No. 105 of 1980. This was prior to the budget of that year. Thereafter it was changed to Tariff Item 15A(1) and as a result it became liable for excise duty. At the relevant period, viz., when the stocks were cleared, from 7-7-1982 to 10-11-1982, it was subjected to duty under Tariff Item 15A(1) and the respondent has to pay excise duty to the tune of Rs. 1,23,048-81P. Thereafter two applications were filed by him on 22-6-1983 and 23-6-1983 claiming refund of the said amount on the ground that on the date of manufacture, there was no liability to pay excise duty in view of Notification No. 105/1980. The appellants directed refund only to the tune of Rs. 92,761/- on the application dated 23-6-1983. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preferred this appeal. 3. Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the appellant, would submit that whatever might have been the prior position of law, having regard to the pronouncement by the Supreme Court in Wallace Flour Mills Company Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [1989 (44) E.L.T. 598 (S.C.)] the matter is no longer res integra, which categorically lays down that the scheme of Excise Act read with relevant rules particularly Excise Rule 9A reveals that the taxable event is the manufacture and the payment of duty is related to the date of removal of such article from the factory. What is relevant is the date of removal and the rates prevailed on the date of removal alone would be applicable. On the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the assessee's contention. "4. Appearing before us in support of the appeal, Mr. Rajiv Dutta, learned counsel for the appellant contended that in several decisions it has been held, and referred us to the said decisions referred to hereinbefore, that the relevant date would be the date of manufacture and in this case the manufacture was complete before the introduction of the budget. It was submitted that until 28th February, 1987, when according to Shri Dutta, the goods had been manufactured, the goods in question were unconditionally exempt from the duty. Under the Finance Bill, 1987-88, the said products were made dutiable at the rate of 15% ad valorem on or from 1st March, 1987. But the appellant had in their factory, a stock of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
