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 (1) TMI 287

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uty under Notification 210/79-C.E., dated 4-6-1979 as amended by Notification No. 264/79-C.E., dated 29-9-1979. The appellants are informing the department whenever they received the imported parts and were claiming credit of the countervailing duty in writing. They had also submitted D. III for their verification. The credits were duly allowed as could be seen from the RG. 23 Registers. On 31-3-1980, the Inspector, Incharge of the appellants factory, scrutinised the registers and noted that the proforma credit under Rule 56A had been erroneously given under Notification 104/79-C.E., dated 3-3-1979 as the watch movements have attracted duty under Tariff Item 68. There was a demand in respect of amount availed as set off. The total amount of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the period 26-12-1979 to 17-5-1980 for the demand of Rs. 61,361.76. His main argument was that Rule 10 was omitted on 17-11-1980 and Section 11A had come into force from that date. According to him, Section 11A did not contain any saving clause and as such the demand raised was not valid since Section 11A was prospective in nature and not retrospective to cover cases of past period. He relied on the decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in 1982 ELT 201 (Ajanta Paper Products, Ratanpur v. C.C.E; Kanpur). This ruling relied on an earlier ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. v. Director of Enforcement reported in AIR 1970 (S.C.) 494. The Allahabad High Court held that as Rule 10 was rescinded w.e. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r Rayon Mfg. (WVG.) Co. v. Union of India and Others) held that as the ruling framed under the Act was a part thereof, even though Rule 10 was omitted from 17-11-1980. Section 11A in any similar wording came into force simultaneously the show cause notice will not evade and the saving clause is not needed to continue the proceedings initiated prior to the appeal or omission of the enactment. The Tribunal followed the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court cited (supra) after adverting to the decision of the Allahabad High Court also cited (supra). A later ruling reported in 1987 (30) E.L.T. 954 (Synthetic Detergent Ltd. v. C.C.E., Cochin) has followed the ruling of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. 6. It is not disputed that the appellant .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e decision of the Supreme Court and how it could be distinguished in respect of the facts of the case. The ruling of the Madhya Pradesh High Court would, in our view, apply to the present facts. The Tribunal has also in the two decisions cited earlier has preferred to follow the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. It may be that the appellants are within the jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court but there is no question of a reference in the present proceedings and hence the ruling cited in 1987 (27) ELT 107 (supra) does not apply. In the ruling reported in 1983 (13) ELT 1342 (supra) it is observed as follows: - ....... The Law declared by a High Court is binding on all its subordinate courts and Tribunals and if proceedings ar .....

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