9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (2) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concessional rate of 7 paise per kilogramme as prescribed by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue and Insurance) under Notification No. 135/67-C.E. dated 3rd July, 1967. The petitioners requested the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Bombay, to grant them concession in duty as provided in the Notification No. 163/65-C.E., dated 1st October, 1965 as they had commenced production of corrugated boards in their factories from 1st May, 1966. the Assistant Collector rejected their request observing that since the concessional rate of duty of 7 paise per kilogramme payable on corrugated boards manufactured out of duty paid paper has been specifically prescribed by Notification No. 135/67-C.E., dated 3rd July, 196 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that it stands independently of the earlier notification." He, therefore, dismissed the application for refund. It is against these orders that the present petitions are filed. 4.Mr. Wadhwani, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, urged that the Central Excise authorities have committed an error in observing that the petitioners were not entitled to both the benefit or concessions which were granted under those two notifications. He further invited our attention to the two decisions given by the Collector of Bombay in which said concessions had been granted. In our view, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners deserves to be accepted. 5.There is no dispute that the product falls under tariff Item No. 17(3) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per kilogramme : Provided that the same is manufactured out of paper falling under the said item on which the appropriate duty of excise, or the appropriate additional duty leviable under Section 2A of the Indian Tariff Act, 1934 (32 of 1934), as the case may be, has been paid." It is the petitioner's case that he had started manufacture of papers from 1st May, 1966 and, therefore, he is entitled for concession of 20% and 15% given in columns of Table annexed to Notification No. 163/65. It is not disputed that the petitioners had been granted concession under Notification No. 135/67 and that they had been charged excise duty at the rate of 7 paise per kilogram. It is true that Notification No. 163/65 was a prior notification and the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on the duty that will be actually leviable at the time of the collection of the duty after taking into consideration all the notifications in force. That being so, it is not possible to accept the interpretation of the Central Excise authorities that the subsequent notification ought not to have been taken into consideration. We are of the opinion that the mention in the notification "for the time being in force" means that the notification issued at that time and also future notifications that would be issued subsequently. 6.We are fortified in our view by the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Devkumarsinghji Kasturchandji v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others reported in AIR 1967 Madhya Pradesh, 268, where the Madhya Prade ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
