1989 (11) TMI 131 - SUPREME COURT

Whether the Tribunal was was right that Rule 56A and Notification No. 201/79 were different enactments and the amendment to one could not be read into the other?

Held that:- In the present case, the excisable goods, namely, polyester fibre were not wholly exempt from duty nor chargeable to nil rate of duty. It cannot be read in the notification that the notification would not be available in case non-excisable goods arise during the course of manufacture. In fact, the Tribunal seems to have erred in not bearing in mind that exemption notification was pressed in service in respect of polyester fibre which is excisable goods and not in respect of methanol which arises as a by-product as a part and parcel of chemical reaction. It appears further on a comparison of the Rule 56A and the Notifn. No. 201/79 that these deal with the identical situation. The Tribunal, therefore, should have taken into consideration the trade notice for interpretation of exemption Notifn. No. 201/79, which was para materia with Rule 56A. Appeal allowed as the Tribunal was in error in coming to the conclusion it did