TMI Blog1995 (12) TMI 199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Both these appeals filed by the Department are against the common impugned order of the Collector (Appeals), dated 21-8-1989 and they are taken up together for disposal by this common order. The issue for consideration in the appeal is whether the respondent would be eligible to take proforma credit in terms of Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in respect of additional excise duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y cloth manufactured out of duty paid yarn. Therefore, if additional duties of excise is held to be not excise duty within the meaning of Section 3 of the CESA, 1944, the respondents would be paying duty on the same goods twice over. The learned Counsel also relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Parekh Prints v. U.O.I. reported in 1992 (62) E.L.T. 255 (Del.) and also the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on the yarn in the manufacture of grey cloth which in turn is cleared on payment of duty. Therefore it would be seen that if the interpretation adopted by the DR were to be accepted, it would mean double levy or double payment of duty by the respondent on the same goods. It is well settled law that law does not admit of double levy unless otherwise specifically provided for. We further note that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
