TMI Blog1985 (12) TMI 149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad taken effect, are liable to pay excise duty at the enhanced rate or at the old rate as prevailed on the date of manufacture. 2. We have heard Shri A.C. Gulati, Advocate, for the appellants, and Shri K.C. Sachar, SDR, for the department. 3. The argument of Shri Gulati is that for imposition of excise duty the chargeable event is manufacture and, therefore, it is the rate of duty that was in force on the date of manufacture that would be relevant for purposes of imposition as well as collection of excise duty. He in fact submitted that even if the rate of duty on the date of clearance is lesser than the rate of duty as was in fores on the date of manufacture, the duty payable at the time of clearance would be not at the lesser rate but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the provision will have to be merely read down as not applicable in particular circumstances, as in the present case, and not always. But this submission does not appear to be correct, since Rule 9A lays down that the rate of duty payable on the goods would be the rate as prevailed on the date of clearance (as distinguished from the rate that would have been prevalent as on the date of manufacture). Therefore, acceptance of the proposition put forward by Shri Gulati would render Rule 9A otiose. In effect that would be to call upon this Tribunal to declare Rule 9A ultra vires. We may observe that it would not be open to this Tribunal to record such a finding, as that would be beyond the competence of this Tribunal, and not within its jur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liability for payment of excise duty on goods which had been manufactured at a time when they were wholly exempt from duty but were cleared subsequent to the withdrawal of the exemption. It was held, following the decision of the Supreme Court (when it dismissed the special leave petition against the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in (1978 E.L.T. 33) that in respect of a commodity which though excisable was on the date of manufacture totally exempted from duty by reason of an exemption notification no duty would be payable though at the time of clearance the exemption notification had been withdrawn. 8. In that decision, as well as in the Parmali Wallace decision the Tribunal had taken note of the distinction between t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e SLP. The later decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Shree Synthetics v. Union of India (1982 E.L.T. 97) dealt with goods which were entitled to partial exemption only on the date of manufacture, and not full exemption. It was held that in such circumstances it was the rate of duty as was in force on the date of clearance that would be relevant for the purpose of assessment under Rule 9A of the Central Excise Rules. It was in view of all the above decisions that this Tribunal had in its earlier decisions (cited supra) held in the manner mentioned earlier. In view of the above decisions, the contention now advanced by Shri Gulati to the contrary is not acceptable. Further, as pointed out by Shri Sachar, the Madhya Pradesh High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
