9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (5) TMI 69X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a bench of three Members. That bench had the benefit of a decision rendered by a bench of three Members on the same issue in the case of CCE, Pune v. Sanjay Founders Private Limited - 1999 (34) RLT 727 Learned Counsel representing the assessee then submitted that the Larger Bench of three Members while disposing of the case reported in 1999 (34) RLT 725 did not take into consideration the principles of law stated by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Mathra Prasad Sons v. State of Punjab - AIR 1962 SC 745. On this submission it was felt that the issue should be placed before a Larger Bench of five Members. That is how the appeal has come before this bench. 2. The question involved in this appeal is whether the amendment made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... get the benefit of the said notification for the year 1988-89, 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93. However, in the year 1989-90, the party will not get the benefit of the notification No.175/86, as the value of clearance in preceding financial year viz. in 1988-89 was above the limit of Rs.1.5 crores as envisaged in Notification 175/86." Assessee was accordingly advised to file revised classification list for the year 1989-90. He took up the matter in appeal. Appellate authority by order dated 24-10-1994 held that the assessee is eligible to the benefit of the Notification 175/86 during the year 1989-90. This view was taken on the factual finding that the assessee had cleared goods valued at Rs.1,98,25,489 only during the financial year 1988-8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Sons v. State of Punjab - AIR 1962 SC 745. That case arose out of notification issued under the Sales Tax Act. Government of Punjab issued notification dated 27-9-1954 exempting manufactured tobacco from sales tax. Department took action to recover sales tax for the period upto September 26, 1954. Dealers approached the High Court, inter alia, praying for a declaration that levy of sales tax on manufactured tobacco upto September 26, 1954 was illegal. When the matter came before the Supreme Court, the question that was mooted was whether the exemption in notification dated September 27, 1954 has the effect from that date or from the beginning of the financial year. The said notification did not state from what date it operates. Taking th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to persons who are paying tax annually and will go against the interest of those who paid tax monthly or quarterly. The same notification could not have intended to create different consequences on dealers depending on the way they pay tax, namely, monthly or quarterly. On this basis Their Lordships took the view that the notification exempting manufactured tobacco from sales tax must be operative from 1-4-1954 even though it was issued on 27th September, 1954. That decision cannot, in our view, be of any assistance in interpreting the notification issued under the Central Excise Act. Duty under the Central Excise Act is payable at the time of removal of the manufactured goods. If the exemption was not available at the time of removal of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
