9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (10) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were using High Density Poly Ethylene (HDPE) or low density Poly Ethylene (LDPE) granules falling under Chapter 39 of the Schedule to the CETA 1985. Upon the introduction of new Excise Tariff effective from 28-2-1986, they wrote to the jurisdictional Assistant Collector on 23-7-86 seeking permission to clear tapes, bags and fabrics as classifiable under Chapter 39 of the Tariff. They were advised to classify tapes and fabrics under Chapter 54 and woven sacks under Chapter 63. The respondents filed a classification list under protest effective from 31-3-86, classifying HDPE tapes of width not exceeding 5 mm under CET sub-heading 5406.00, HDPE woven fabrics under CET sub-heading 5408.00/5903.21, sacks, laminated jute bags under Chapter headi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HDPE fabrics was exempt from Central Excise duty from 1-3-86 to 11-2-90 and as a result of wrong classification under Chapter 54/59, they had paid total duty of the above amount to which they were entitled as refund. The Assistant Commissioner's order and remanded claim vide order dated 13-10-95 on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Assistant Commissioner's order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication also observing that since duty was paid at interim stage, the question of passing on the incidence of duty to final consumer does not arise and also time-bar would not apply since duty was paid under protest. In the present adjudication order, leading to the impugned order, the Assistan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so (c) to sub-section (2) of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act makes an exception in respect of cases involving credit of duty. This provision refers to payment of refund of duty to the applicants of credit of duty paid on inputs in accordance with Rules or Notification. Thus, refund of credit of duty to the applicants is permitted. Our finding is supported by the decisions of the Tribunal in the cases of C.C.E., Bhubaneshwar v. Orient Paper Mills, 1994 (73) E.L.T. 648 and C.C.E., Kanpur v. Brooke Bond Lipton, 1999 (107) E.L.T. 228. 4. In the light of the above decisions, the finding of the lower Appellate Authority that requirement of cost data on HDPB tapes is irrelevant since duty on tape was paid at specific rate and that verifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
