9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (7) TMI 101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which were exempted unconditionally under Notification No. 147/84; that Rule 57C does not allow credit of duty when the final product is exempted from whole of the duty or is chargeable to Nil rate of duty; that the duty paid through R.G. 23A Part-II was thus legally incorrect and thus no rebate under Rule 12 available; that the order-in-appeal No. ADN-385/91-BI dated 20-8-1991 of the other Collector (Appeals) who took a contrary view to that of the impugned order-in-appeal, was correct. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondents had filed rebate claims, under Rule 12 of Central Excise Rules in respect of 'Methyl Imidazole' exported out of India against A.R. 4A No. 112/90-91 dated 13-12-1990 on payment of duty vide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, in terms of Supreme Court decision in the case of Union of India and Others v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd., [1985 (22) E.L.T. 306 (S.C.)] doctrine of promissory estoppel applied against the Excise Department. They accordingly sought direction to the lower authorities to pay rebate of Rs. 1,19,921/- claimed by them and as allowed by Collector (Appeals). 7. Government have gone through the records of the case. It is trite law that notifications issued in accordance with the power conferred by a statute have statutory force and get the same force as of Act itself [Kailash Nath v. State of U.P. AIR 1957 (SC) 790]. 8. The duty paid, if any, contrary to the provisions of an exemption notification are not to be in the nature of the duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e respondents to claim indirectly, through a convoluted method, what is directly prohibited under Rule 57C. 10. In the result, Govt. held that payments, if any, made in recognisable sense through R.G. 23A Part-11 of this case were not duties of excise and thus no rebate is payable. In the result, the impugned order-in-appeal dated 10-7-1992 is set aside and the order-in-original dated 11-10-1991 is restored. Case of Hindustan Alloys Manufacturing Co. Ltd. M/s. Hindustan Alloys Manufacturing Company Ltd. have also filed a revision application against the order-in-appeal No. ADN-385/91/BI, referred to in para 2 above. The main issue being the same the revision application by M/s Hindustan Alloys Manufacturing Company Ltd. is also dispos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
