Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1987 (10) TMI 163

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rules ) exempted such tyres from the whole of the excise duty leviable thereon. The Order F. No. 7/20/64-Ex. II, dated 27.10.1984* read as follows :- I am directed to refer to your letter No. 031/PTJ, dated the 3rd October, 1964 on the above subject and to say that in pursuance of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Board of Excise and Customs grants exemption from whole of the Central Excise duty leviable on miniature tyres proposed to be manufactured and distributed as free gifts." (It may be noted that the Board s order did not say under which item of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule - CET - miniature tyres fell). It appears that the Assistant Collector, Goa, considered that the Board s order app .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r the Board could grant an exemption of a permanent nature under Rule 8(2) when its powers under that sub-rule would appear to relate to specific consignments, Shri Ignatius submitted that the Board s order was specifically on miniature tyres and the precedent decision of this Tribunal should be applied to the instant case too. However, Shri Sachar, D.R. submitted that an exemption order under Rule 8(2) could only be ad hoc. 5. At this stage, Shri Ignatius sought leave of the Bench to withdraw the appeal. Leave was declined by a majority of the Bench. This was in the light of this Tribunal s decision in Mahandra Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Baroda - 1987 (31) E.L.T. 295, holding inter alia that right of withdrawal of appeal is not available to part .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... not apply to the subject goods during the material period. We uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal. 8. [Per : V.T. Raghavachari, Member (J)]. - I am writing this separate order since, when a request was made for withdrawal of the appeal (as noted in paragraph 5 of the order prepared by the Sr. Vice-President), I was of the opinion that the same should be permitted but, as noted in the order of the Sr. Vice-President, the majority of the Members were of the contrary view and, therefore, permission for withdrawal of the appeal was declined by the Bench. 9. In his submissions Shri Ignatius mainly relied on the decision of this Tribunal reported in 1987 (29) E.L.T. 732 which dealt with the same product manufactured by the same a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e exemption granted under the letter dated 27.10.1964. That is to say, the appellants were being permitted by other Collectorates except the Goa Collectorate to remove this product without payment of duty. In respect of Goa Collectorate the appellants have obtained the order of this Tribunal cited supra upholding their contention for eligibility for exemption. It is in these circumstances that, when posed with the question whether the decision of the Tribunal earlier would not be wrong (on the basis that the letter dated 27.10.1964 could not grant exemption in respect of future removals), Shri Ignatius made the request for withdrawal of the appeal, evidently because he felt that any adverse decision in this appeal may initiate action for de .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ree that the letter dated 27.10.1964 relied on by the appellants would not entitle the appellants to claim exemption from payment of duty in the instances in issue. I, therefore, concur with the order of dismissal of the appeal proposed by the Sr. Vice-President. 15. [per : K. Prakash Anand, Member (T)]. - I wholly concur in the order recorded by my learned brother Shri Sankaran. In view, however, of the comments made by my learned brother Shri Raghavachari, it has become necessary for me to make a small observation. 16. I do not think that brother Sankaran and I felt that in the light of the decision of Mahandra Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Baroda - 1987 (31) E.L.T. 295, no appellant can, in any circumstances, be permitte .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates