9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1989 (9) TMI 262 - AT - Central Excise
Issues: Interpretation of Rule 56A(8) in relation to availing input relief under Notification 95/83.
In this case, the appellants were availing input relief under Notification 95/83 until an amending Notification 178/86 took away the benefit for stampings. The appellants continued to avail the benefit for a specific period under the impression that Rule 56A(8) allowed them to do so, despite the amending Notification. The main issue was whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit under Rule 56A(8) or not. The learned Consultant for the appellants argued that Rule 56A(8) should be interpreted liberally to entitle the appellants to the benefit originally available under Notification 95/83. He pointed out that the input relief benefit was not notified under Rule 56A but was extended through Notification 95/83. The appellants followed the Rule 56A procedure under the notification, and hence, their case should fall under the ambit of Rule 56A(8) according to the consultant. On the other hand, the Senior D.R. contended that Rule 56A(8) applied only to commodities previously notified under Rule 56A, which did not include the commodity in question that was benefiting from Notification 95/83. The Senior D.R. argued that since the commodity was enjoying input relief under a notification and not Rule 56A, Rule 56A(8) should not apply to the appellants' case. The judgment emphasized that Rule 56A(8) provided benefits for commodities previously notified under Rule 56A but excluded due to changes in nomenclature under a new Tariff. The appellants' product was not enjoying the benefit under Rule 56A but under Notification 95/83. The deletion of the appellants' product from the notification meant they were no longer entitled to input relief. As the appellants did not benefit from Rule 56A originally, they were not eligible for the benefits of Rule 56A(8). The judgment concluded that since the substantive concession was not under Rule 56A but under Notification 95/83, the appellants were not entitled to the benefits of Rule 56A(8). Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
|
