Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.33 seconds)
Documents citing Digvijay Cement Company Limited vs Union Of India on 8 August, 1986

C.M.C. (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India on 27 June, 1991

It becomes obvious that Rule 56A(2) and for that matter any other sub-parts of the said rule partly consist of procedural provisions to be followed by a manufacturer for earning benefit under the said rule while in part they consist of substantive conditions which have to be complied with before benefit of Rule 56A itself can be made available to the concerned party by the competent authority. So far as the exemption notification at annexure D is concerned, it has in terms exempted S.O. Dyestuffs manufactured by the petitioner from excise duty equivalent to the amount of the countervailing customs duty paid on the imported intermediates which have gone in the manufacture of these dyestuffs. The proviso engrafted on 16-6-1980 to the said notification has not in any way whittled down or diluted or rescinded the exemption notification by the said proviso. But all that it has sought to do is to import the machinery of the procedural provisions of Rule 56A which is to be followed by the concerned manufacturers who want to get benefit of the exemption notification qua finished product viz. S.O. Dyestuffs manufactured by them. The procedure set out in Rule 56A as mentioned in the proviso to this exemption notification cannot mean eligibility condition for earning proforma credit as laid down by provisos to Rule 56A(2) as these conditions and provisions are substantive provisions by themselves as held by the aforesaid Division Bench decision and these substantive provisions were not invoked by the proviso to the exemption notification. It is had intended to include them, the proviso would have referred to provisions of Rule 56A and not procedure of Rule 56A. It is not possible to agree with the contention of the learned advocate for the respondents that the exemption notification is in fact incorporating the entire set-off provision and is parallel to Rule 56A. It has to be kept in view that so far as S.O. Dyestuffs manufactured by the petitioner are concerned, even though the said commodity is specifically covered by notification under Rule 56A(1), the benefit of the said provision would not be available to the petitioner as the very first proviso in the light to both of its sub-parts would disentitle the petitioner from claiming any benefit of Rule 56A for the said product and no credit rule laid down by both the said parts of the first proviso would apply to the facts of the present case. Mr. Shah for the petitioner also conceded to this position and submitted that he cannot claim and does not claim any benefit directly under Rule 56A and his only contention is that benefit of the exemption notification which was available to his product all throughout had not stood withheld or rescinded only because the proviso was added to the said notification under which a manufacturer like the petitioner had to follow the procedural provision of Rule 56A for continuing to get benefit of the exemption notification during its currency till 1984. We find considerable substance in the aforesaid stand of the learned advocate for the petitioner. No proforma credit would ever be available to the petitioner's product under Rule 56A as the 2nd part of the very first proviso ruled out such benefit on the facts of the present case. It has been laid down by the first proviso to Rule 56A(2) that no credit of duty shall be allowed in respect of any material or component parts used in the manufacture of finished excisable goods if such finished excisable goods produced by the manufacturer are exempted from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon or are chargeable to nil rate of duty. Of course, that part does not apply to this petitioner as it finished product is excisable. However, the second part of the first proviso to Rule 56A(2) will apply to the petitioner's product. It runs as under :-
Gujarat High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products ... vs Union Of India And Ors. on 8 April, 1987

11. We find that an identical question has come up for consideration before the Gujarat High Court in Digvijay Cement Company Limited v. Union of India(3) 1986(25) Excise Law Times 879 (Gujarat). The Gujarat High Court rejected identical contention and held that the proforma credit procedure specified in Rule 56A(1) does not ensure to the benefit of a manufacturer of finished excisable goods unless the excise duty under the same Tariff Item on the finished excisable goods on the one hand and the raw materials and component parts used in the manufacture of finished excisable goods on the other is paid under the same Tariff Item. We are in respectful agreement with the decision of the Gujarat High Court.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 1 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1