TMI Blog1986 (12) TMI 169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a consolidated order. 2. The facts of both the appeals are similar. The appellants cleared their products falling under Tariff Item 14E at maximum retail price and supplied at tender rate to the Government Department thereby paid less duty than the actual amount of duty payable by them during the period from March 1979 to September 1979. Therefore, the concerned Range Superintendent issued a show cause cum demand notice for the differential duty of Rs. 24,009.89 to the appellant. In reply to the show cause notice the appellant had stated that the goods in question had been cleared at their M.R.P. less 20% being their option under Notification No. 161/66-C.E., dated 8-10-1966 as amended from time to time; and it was their option whether to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re independent and not exclusive of each other. The learned Assistant Collector of Customs observed that the prices quoted were inclusive of Central Excise duty. No separate excise duty had been recovered/shown in the invoices. The demand in question had been issued for P or P medicines cleared as per maximum retail price but actually supplied at Tender rates to the Government Departments. The demand was issued for difference between duty paid on the value arrived as per M.R.P. but duty was payable on the value of Tender price after deducting the Central Excise duty element. He had confirmed the demand for Rs. 24,009.89 under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In another order with similar observations he had also confirmed the dema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee separately unless there is any specific provision to the contrary. Also, an interpretation which creates an anomaly of a nature resulting in either of the notifications becoming inoperative or redundant is to be avoided. The Tribunal further held that construed strictly and in accordance with the plain meanings of the words used therein. However, if there is any doubt, the benefit of it must go to the assessee so that the tax burden is lessened. But when there is no scope of any doubt, there hardly arises any question of giving any benefit to the assessee. Shri Engineer has also referred to another judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Hemraj Gordhandas v. H.H. Dave, AC/CE Others reported in 1978 E.L.T. J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication No. 161/66-C.E., dated 8-10-1966 the Central Government exempts patent or proprietory medicines falling under TI 14E of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as is excess of the duty calculated on the basis of the value arrived after allowing a discount of 25% on the price specified in the price list showing the retail prices referred to in the said order. The appellant had opted to avail the benefit of Notification No-161/66-C.E., dated 8-10-1966. The Tribunal in its earlier order in the case of Indye Chemicals, Ahmedabad v. Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad reported in 1986(25) E.L.T 318 cited by Shri Engineer, Advocate had held that if the exemptions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
