9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. - This appeal is filed by the appellants against the Order-in-Appeal Nos. 69-72/2002 (H-III)-C.E., dated 30-8-2002, passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Hyderabad. 2. The short point involved in this case is whether the restriction on the quantum of credit imposed by Notification No. 14/97, dated 3-5-9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... loyds Steel v. CCE, Nagpur reported in 2004 (176) E.L.T. 783 (Tri.-Mumbai), wherein it is held that the restriction of Notification No. 5/97-C.E. not being applicable before 2-6-1998 as per the priviso introduced would itself indicate that the restriction as per the Notification No. 14/97-C.E. is not applicable to credit under Rule 57B. He further said that Rule 57B begins with a non obstante clau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal's decision in the case of Lloyds Steel : (d) The reliance of ld. DR on the case of Jindal Polyster [2001 (137) E.L.T. 355] is considered. It is seen that the Bench had read the Rule 57B(1) before the amendments made to it by the Notification No. 21/98-C.E. (N.T.), dated 2-6-98, i.e. in absence of the proviso clause to Rule 57B(1) and 95% restriction of the specified duty paid. The a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not able to apply the plea of harmonious interpretation of Rules 57A & 57B as submitted and made out in these decisions relied upon by the DR, to conclude that restrictions imposed by notification under Rule 57A(3) would automatically apply, especially after the amendments of 2-6-98 by Notification 21/98-C.E. (N.T) when parent Rule 57A(3) proviso introduced and is to be read with the non obstante ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
