TMI Blog1990 (9) TMI 207X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 19-8-1979 for exhibition to the share holders at the Company s Annual General Meeting held in August, 1979 which according to appellants were brought back to the factory and repulped under excise supervision. However, the department has taken the date 19-8-1979 as first clearance date for the purpose of reckoning the date for availing the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 108/81-C.E., dated 24-4-1981. The appellants have submitted that the department had restricted the benefit of exemption under the aforesaid notification to the period from 24-4-1981 to 18-8-1984 for a period of only three years three months and 26 days as against the period of five years envisaged under the notification. The appellants have submitted that they made a representation to Government of India for issuing orders making the benefit of the exemption available for a full period of five years. They have stated that pending issuance of necessary notification on the insistence of the department, they paid full rate of duty on all clearances effected from 19-8-1984 onwards. Eventually, the Notification No. 214/84-C.E., dated 9-11-1984 was issued by the Government amending the second proviso to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at - Having a clear period of five years, under the Notification No. 108/81, for concessional rate of clearances, it will not be correct or proper to allow a further period beyond the period of five years, as initially period of five years expired before coming into effect of Notification No. 214/84-C.E. The appellants have not availed the partial exemption under Notification No. 108/81 from the date of first clearance by them, and that omission cannot entitle them to avail concession for a period exceeding that of five years. 9. Shri Chidambaram, Consultant for the appellants, submitted that both the orders of the lower authorities suffer from patent errors. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) in his impugned order has not properly understood the facts and has totally mis-applied the facts and confused himself in reading the notification in question and applying the provisions to the facts in question. He submitted that the appellants were not asking for concession for more than five years as wrongly understood by Collector (Appeals), but their case is that they were entitled for full five years concession from the date of publication of the Notification No. 108/81 in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (2) E.L.T. J 476] 4. Hansraj Gordhandas v. H.H. Dave, Asstt. Collector of Central Excise Customs, Surat Others (AIR 1970 SC 755) 11. We have heard both the sides and carefully examined the contentions of both the parties. 12. The Notification No. 108/81, dated 24-4-1981 reads as follows - Partial exemption to printing and writing paper excluding poster paper. - In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts printing and writing paper (other than poster paper) falling under sub-item (1) of Item No. 17 of the First Schedule of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) (hereinafter referred to as the said goods) from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as is in excess of the duty calculated at the rate of fifty per cent of the rate of duty leviable on the said goods read with any relevant notification issued under sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the said Rules and in force for the time being : Provided that - (i) the said goods are manufactured out of pulp containing not less than seventy-five per cent by weight of pulp made from bamboo or wood or from a mixture of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g sought for the period from 9-8-1984 to 8-11-1984. The Department permitted the appellants to clear on concessional rate of duty again from 9-11-1984 after the amending Notification No. 214/84-C.E., dated 9-11-1984 was issued. If the Department s contention that the period of five years for availment of the concessional rate of duty should be reckoned from the date of first clearance i.e. 19-8-1979, then, the period of concession should have ended on 19-8-1984. It is surprising to note that, on the contrary to the stand taken by it, the Department has allowed the assessee to clear the goods on concessional duty from 9-11-1984 i.e. the date of the amending Notification No. 214/84-C.E. It follows that the Department has accepted the position that the second proviso sought to be amended in Notification No. 108/81-C.E., dated 24-4-1981 by Notification No. 214/84, dated 9-11-1984 is effective from the original date of the publication in the Gazette i.e. 24-4-1981. The Department has accepted this position by granting five years time concession from the date of publication of Notification No. 108/81, which, in our view, was correct. Therefore, the Department cannot later change its stan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
