9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (2) TMI 179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entral Excise Rules, 1944. The charge he had established against them was that they had removed excisable goods (paper) received by them for use in the manufacture of their final products, biscuits and on which they had taken Modvat Credit, without payment of the appropriate duty as required under Rule 57F(1)(ii) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. They had removed such goods received by them as their inputs after payment of duty equal to the Modvat Credit taken by them on their receipt which was restricted to Rs. 800.00 per Tonne whereas they were to pay duty thereon on their removal from their factory as such at the rate applicable thereto as if the same had been manufactured by them in terms of the aforesaid provision. 2. Shri R.N. Das ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... insertion of Rule (1A) whereby the duty to be paid if the inputs are removed is limited to the amount of Credit availed would have retrospective effect right from the coming into force of the main provision 57F itself. The earlier provision was ultra vires and the same was rectified by the said amendment and that will point to the retrospective applicability of the said amendment. Shri Das then submitted that the Collector had relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in Ponds India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1991(56) E.L.T. 574 which was not disclosed in the show cause notice and they could not, therefore, make their submissions in this regard. He then submitted that there was no loss of duty and there was no case for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... make a proper defence submission as there was no reference to the Tribunal decision in the Show Cause Notice but it was only cited in the Adjudication Order. The relevant provisions were properly referred to and the appellants made a detailed submission. They were placed under no handicap in giving their reply. We also do not accept the contention raised by Shri Das, learned Counsel that the requirement that duty should be paid as if the goods are manufactured by the factory where they had been received is against the legal position of duty liability being with the actual manufacturer of the goods. The vires of the provision cannot be challenged before us. We find that demand for duty liable to be paid by them as spelt out in the notice re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
