TMI Blog1983 (2) TMI 281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itled to a further exemption which was in the nature of an incentive for their excess production of scooters calculated in the specified manner. The relevant portion of this notification exempted their excess production of scooters from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon under the said item [read with any notification issued under sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and in force for the time being] as is in excess of 75 per cent of such duty, ... The dispute involved in the present appeal is whether while assessing duty on the scooter, the exemption (or incentive) under Notification No. 198/76-CE is to be calculated before or after deducting the duty set off on the engine under Notification No. 21/77-CE. Durin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same notification. They argued that Notification No. 198/76-CE was also an exemption notification just as Notification No. 21/77-CE and there was no justification to apply the latter notification first before applying the former notification. 3. On behalf of the Department, Shri Raghavan Iyer laid stress on the wording of Notification No. 198/76-CE the relevant portion from which has already been extracted in para 1 above. He stated that the language used in this notification made it incumbent that the incentive should be calculated on the effective rate of duty payable under the tariff item read with any exemption notification in force which in this case was Notification No. 21/77-CE. Notification No. 198/76-CE was an exemption pil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alculated with reference to the net effective duty actually payable on scooters. If one were to follow the method of calculation urged by the appellants, one would have to omit the words, figures and brackets [read with any notification issued under sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 as in force for the time being] from Notification No. 198/76-CE for which there is no warrant. We, therefore, agree that the method of calculation followed by the Department is the correct one. We also agree with the argument of the Department that there is no discrimination against the appellants vis-a-vis another manufacturer similarly placed, that is, working under the set off procedure. 5. In the result, we reject this appeal. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
