Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.19 seconds)Sandoz (India) Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 27 July, 1988
In this connection, we may mention that the Tribunal in the case of Sandoz India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, 1988 (37) E.L.T. 299 has taken the same view which we are inclined to take on the interpretation of the exemption notification in the light of the proviso engrafted therein on 16-6-1980. The said decision is rendered in connection with an identical commodity produced by the concerned manufacturer. In connection with the said product, it has been observed as under :
Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products ... vs Union Of India And Others on 1 January, 1800
In this connection, our attention was invited to a division bench judgment of this court in the case of Digvijay Cement v. U.O.I. 1986 (25) E.L.T. 879 and also to a judgment of the A.P. High Court in Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products Ltd. v. U.O.I. 1987 (32) E.L.T. 28 which had followed the aforesaid decision of this court. It was submitted on behalf of the respondents that exemption notification under Rule 8(1) will have to be read with entire Rule 56A which is incorporated by reference as per the proviso to the said exemption notification and from 16-6-1980 onwards, therefore, the petitioner's product S.O. dyestuffs lost the benefit of exemption notification issued under Rule 8(1) as it did not answer the requirements of procedure laid down by Rule 56A inasmuch as the second proviso to Rule 56A(2) disentitled the petitioner from getting credit of countervailing duty for the simple reason that countervailing duty was paid by the petitioner in respect of the raw material and component parts which fell under T.I. 68 and hence on the express language of the said proviso, no credit of countervailing duty would be available to the petitioner by the thrust of the said proviso to Rule 56A(2). It was also contended that as provided by Rule 56A(1), the said provision operated notwithstanding any other rule and hence notification issued under Rule 8 also got superseded by the provision of Rule 56A(1). It was, therefore, submitted that the stand taken by the respondent department while issuing the impugned communications at annexures B and C was quite justified and called for no interference.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 3 in The Customs Tariff Act, 1975 [Entire Act]
The Central Excise Act, 1944
Digvijay Cement Company Limited vs Union Of India on 8 August, 1986
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 :-
Swishflo Private Limited vs N.R. Jadav on 18 November, 1976
6. Mr. Raval for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the exemption notification at annexure D itself recites that it seeks to grant set-off on countervailing duty and, therefore, it envisages a scheme of set-off of countervailing duty in connection with imported intermediates that might have been utilised for manufacturing S.O. Dyes and the scheme of set-off as laid down by Rule 56A being a well knit composite scheme gets attracted in such cases by virtue of express provisions in the proviso to the exemption notification at annexure D at least from 16-6-1980 and when the proviso has laid down that the procedure set out in Rule 56A has to be followed, the entire procedure as contemplated by Rule 56A alongwith provisos gets attracted and this procedure cannot be bifurcated into the procedure for clearance of goods under the Act and the eligibility for proforma credit procedure as laid down by the proviso to Rule 56A(2).
1