9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... viable thereon, the goods are exempted from the operation of Rule 174 of the Rules. The goods are specified in the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (in short 'the Tariff Act'). The proviso makes it clear that where goods are chargeable to nil rate of duty or where the exemption from the whole of the duty of excise leviable is granted on any of the six categories enumerated, the manufacturer is required to make a declaration and give an undertaking, as specified in the Form annexed while claiming exemption for the first time under this Notification and thereafter before the 15th day of April of each financial year. As found by the forums below, including CEGAT, factually, the declaration and the undertaking were not submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 990 to 21-8-1990, major portion of the articles manufactured by them in terms of value were exempt from Central Excise Licensing Control under Rule 174A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (in short 'the Rules'). Since all the goods manufactured in their main factory were fully exempt from duty during the relevant period, only a minor portion of production was carried out in the Chinchwad factory. A show cause dated 28-8-1990 was served by the Central Excise authorities requiring them to show cause as to why duty shall not be levied and penalty imposed for failure to take out L-4 licence required for the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapter headings No. 3924.90 (Casserole) and 3909.60 (Rigid Polyurethene Foam) falling during t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpt. It was, therefore, obligatory on the part of the appellants to follow the requisite procedures before manufacturing goods at the Chinchwad factory. As regards the claim that the appellants were covered by Notification No. 11/88 (N.T.)-C.E., dated 15-4-1988, the adjudicating officer found that the appellants had not complied with the requirements, as contained in the Notification. He also found that the appellants had started the manufacturing in the premises of M/s. Top Plastics Pvt. Ltd. right from March, 1990 at Chinchwad even before the aforesaid M/s. Top Plastics Pvt. Ltd. had applied for cancellation of their license on 21-8-1990. He also noted that the appellants had obtained the L-4 licence only on 28-3-1990. Since they have not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mply with the requirement of submitting declaration under Notification 11/88. That being so, the orders passed by the departmental authorities were confirmed. 4. In support of the appeal, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that when the items were exempt from duty, there was consequential exemption from licensing control. In any event, mere lapse of non-submitting a declaration in terms of Notification 11/88 does not dis entitle the assessee from the benefits otherwise available under the Notification. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment of the CEGAT. 6. We find that Notification 11/88 deals with exemption from operation of Rule 174 to exempted goods. The Notification has been issued in exercise of po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
