TMI Blog1990 (4) TMI 151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 1-3-1979 as amended by Notification No. 58/82 dated 28-2-1982. These notifications provide for partial exemption in respect of duty leviable on finished goods to the extent of duty paid on goods used as inputs, provided the procedure set out in Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules is followed. The appellants despatched Synthetic Rubber and Carbon Black to M/s. Madras Elastomers, where the goods were utilised in the manufacture of Rubber sheets falling under T.I. 16A(2) (These Rubber sheets were fully exempt from duty in terms of Notification 71/68-CE). The appellants expunged the credit of duty paid on synthetic rubber and carbon black which they had taken into account in respect of consignments sent to M/s. Madras Elastomers. Therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d have restrospective effect, the Collector (Appeals) held that this question would fall within the jurisdiction of the same Collector who had considered their application. 4. The appellants before us submit that they had filed the application for permission for removal of goods to M/s. Madras Elastomers on 28-3-1982 itself and this permission was granted only on 29-9-1982. It is their contention that during the period between 3/82 and 9/82, due to power shut down at their factory, they had to operate under Rule 56A(7) procedure and they were also sending periodical intimations to the Supdt. of Central Excise about the quantities of specified inputs despatched from their factory to M/s. Madras Elastomers who were processing the inputs. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that the waste, if any, is also returned to the said manufacturer s factory after such operations and disposed of in the manner laid down in clause (iv) of sub-rule (3). (ii) The Collector may on receipt of an application under clause (i), permit such removal and return subject to such terms, conditions and limitations, as he may impose." 7. In this case, the appellants applied under the above quoted rule on 28-3-1982. However, there was a long delay of 6 months in granting permission. This delay is not attributable to the appellants who cannot be penalised in the absence of any fault on their part. We note that the appellants have substantially complied with the provisions of Rule 56A(7)(i) in that they were keeping the Department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
