TMI Blog1986 (12) TMI 211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal) was transferred to M/s. Modi Syntex (P) Ltd. from 31.8.1983 and subsequently the name of Modi Syntex (P) Ltd. has been changed to Vishal Syntex Ltd. Bringing to our notice these facts an application was filed for change of cause title and the same was allowed after hearing both sides. Hence the appellant at present is M/s. Vishal Syntex Ltd. 2. The appellants were manufacturers, amongst other things, of a fancy yarn by name Fenaplast Yarn. They were paying duty thereon under T.I. 18-E CET. Subsequently on 6.12.1978 they filed classification list mentioning that the proper classification for fenaplast yarn would be T.I. 68-CET. This classification was approved on 5.2.1979, approval being communicated on 13.2.1979. The appellants clai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vised their claim to Rs. 64,743.16P. The Assistant Collector under his order dated 7.10.1980 held that since exemption under notification No. 118/75 had been applied for on 3.4.1979 only no claim on that account would be admissible for the period 7.7.1978 to 8.12.1978 and an amount of Rs. 27,476.40P claimed on this account was not admissible. With reference to the balance of the claim he disallowed Rs. 1863.32P on the ground that dury having been already paid and realised from the buyers that should also taken into consideration in fixing the assessable value. Therefore he allowed this refund claim to the extent of Rs. 35,403.20P only. The appellants preferred a revision petition under Section 35-A(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e informed on 5.4.1979 that the same was provisional, it is seen on a perusal of the letter dated 5.4.1979 that the same related to three other classification lists (evidently following the classification list dated 6.12.1978 and on the same terms) and that the said letter dated 5.4.1979 made no reference to classification list No. 68/4/54/79. But this would not, in our opinion, be very relevant with reference to the issue before us. 7. The main reason stated by the Assistant Collector for rejection of the claim for benefit under notification No. 118/75 was that the said benefit was claimed under a classification list filed on 3.4.1979 and hence the benefit thereof could not be claimed with reference to the earlier clearances. This is t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under that notification on 11.9.1975 only. The Government held that benefit ought not to be denied on that technical ground and directed that benefit be granted on the Assistant Collector being satisfied, with reference to evidence produced by the assessee in respect of actual use in the other factory. Shri Chandershekharan contends that in the present cases also we should adopt the same reasoning and grant relief. 9. Shri Sachar, as already mentioned, contends that no such relief could be granted unless the intended use in the other factory had been intimated to the proper officer and he was satisfied thereof. It does not appear as if any particular procedure had been prescribed in connection with benefit to be claimed under the proviso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
