TMI Blog1999 (4) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n raised for the assessee is, whether he is liable to pay excise duty on dyed worsted woollen yarn when he has already paid the duty on the worsted woollen grey yarn, if liable, whether he is entitled for set off the difference of excise duty, which he paid for the "grey yarn' while being taxed on the said 'dyed yarn'? The two Notifications imposing duty on the said two goods are Notifications 235 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee from the Assistant Collector under Rule 56A, thus the appellants were directed to show cause why Central Excise Duty of Rs. 4,08,789.96 should not be recovered under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules. The Assistant Collector confirmed the said demand over-ruling the assessee's objections with reference to the past practices. In appeal the Collector of Customs and Central Excise (Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... two separate distinct head of tariff item with different duty. So this itself recognises they to be two different goods with separate levy. In view of this it cannot be urged that there is no manufacture of 'dyed yarn' from the `grey yarn'. 2. Next the only short point pressed for decision is, whether appellant is entitled for set off under Rule 56A, when he has not followed the procedure as la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hence, appellant cannot claim benefit of this amendment. In view of this we do not find any error in the Tribunal's judgment when it did not grant set off to the appellant. Admittedly, appellant never applied or claimed for proforma credit of the differential amount, hence claim was rightly rejected. 3. We are also informed the decision reported in 1985 (20) E.L.T. 179 (S.C.) = 1985 (3) SCC 314 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
