TMI Blog1987 (2) TMI 214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e issue to be decided in this case is whether Central Excise duty was payable on the Sodium Meta Silicate manufactured by the respondents out of duty-paid Sodium Silicate. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise held that duty was leviable on Sodium Meta Silicate as any variety of Sodium Silicate had to pay duty at the appropriate rate at the time of clearance, there being no distinction between ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ard Smt. J.K. Chander for the appellant. She has argued that duty was payable at the second stage, i.e., at the time of clearance. So, Central Excise duty was payable on Sodium Meta Silicate. She has relied upon this Tribunal s decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Thane v. Indian Dyestuff Industries Ltd., reported in 1986 (10) ECC Page T-132. 4. Arguing for the respondents Shri V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cal process would fall outside the purview of Tariff Item 14BB, but it is now a settled principle of law that a Trade Notice does not have any statutory force and it cannot over-rule a statutory provision. Rule 9(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 provides that No excisable goods shall be removed from any place where they are produced, cured or manufactured or any premises appurtenant thereto, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ory provision. In the case of Collector of Central Excise, Thane v. Indian Dyestuff Industries Ltd., 1986 (Volume 10 - Part 3) ECC Page T-132, this Tribunal held that the assessable value has to be determined when the goods are removed from any place where they had been produced, cured or manufactured. In the said case, wet cakes of dyestuff concentrates were formulated and then it was sold in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the Department did not allege in the demand notices any fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts on the part of the respondents, the demand for duty should be restricted to a period of six months prior to the date of issue of the demand notices on 23-3-1982, i.e., it should be restricted to the period from 24-9-1981 to 28-2-1982 only. 7. We, therefore, set aside the impug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
