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

2009 (12) TMI 244

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... -BB read with Notification No. 33/90-C.E. (N.T.)? Held that- In fact there is no such power said to have vested with the authorities for effecting such withdrawal in a retrospective manner. In any event, as rightly held by the Tribunal, a simple reading of letter dated 6-1-1992 stating that the permission granted on 7-10-1991 was withdrawn with immediate effect can only mean that such withdrawal was to operate prospectively i.e. subsequent to the issuance of the said letter dated 6-1-1992. We also concur with the said conclusion of the Tribunal as any other conclusion would run contrary to the very specific intention conveyed in the letter dated 6-1-1992. Looked at from any angle, we do not find any flaw in the order of the Tribunal and the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The quantity of yarn and fabrics released as per this permission shall be intimated to this office. (2) Separate account shall be maintained by M/s. SRF Ltd. Madras right from yarn stage until the clearance of fabrics. (3) Procedure prescribed under Notification No. 33/90-C.E. (N.T.) shall be followed strictly. (4) Waste/bye-products, if any, generated in the process shall also be transmitted to the applicant along with the finished fabrics." 3. It is not in dispute that between 15-11-1991 and 29-11-1991, 250 metric tonnes of yarn procured from the first respondent were processed into tyre cord fabrics and the entire quantity was forwarded to M/s. Apollo Tyres Ltd., Perambra, without payment of duty based on the permission granted .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mitted the matter for de novo enquiry with certain observations. Thereafter, the present order in original dated 31-5-2004 came to be passed by which a demand of duty on nylon yarn as well as the nylon tyre cord fabric of Rs. 60,15,625/- and Rs. 10,50,000/- respectively came to be passed. Against this order, the present appeal has been preferred. 5. The following substantial questions of law have been raised by the appellant :- (i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the letter from the Assistant Collector dated 7-10-1991 withdrawing the facility of non-payment of excise duty on Nylon yarn with immediate effect, was only of prospective effect not of retrospective effe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... fabrics. As noted by the Tribunal, in the impugned order, it is not the case of the appellant that there was any breach of condition imposed in the said certificate dated 7-10-1991, nor any of the stipulation contained in the Notification No. 33/90-C.E. (N.T.) dated 5-9-1990. 7. Therefore, the only question to be considered was whether withdrawal of such permission by the very same authority, viz., the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Trichur, dated 6-1-1992, would in any way impinge upon further action carried on by the first respondent at the instance of M/s. Apollo Tyres, based on the permission letter dated 7-10-1991 and the certificate of the same date. In the communication dated 6-1-1992 the Assistant Collector, Trichur, whil .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he earlier permission letter dated 7-10-1991 retrospectively. In fact there is no such power said to have vested with the authorities for effecting such withdrawal in a retrospective manner. In any event, as rightly held by the Tribunal, a simple reading of letter dated 6-1-1992 stating that the permission granted on 7-10-1991 was withdrawn with immediate effect can only mean that such withdrawal was to operate prospectively i.e. subsequent to the issuance of the said letter dated 6-1-1992. We also concur with the said conclusion of the Tribunal as any other conclusion would run contrary to the very specific intention conveyed in the letter dated 6-1-1992. Looked at from any angle, we do not find any flaw in the order of the Tribunal and th .....

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