9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (9) TMI 271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order per: Shri K.L. Rekhi, Member (Technical)]. - The impugned order-in-appeal was a combined order passed in relation to five orders in original passed by the Assistant Collector. Out of these, the appellant's appeal in relation to order-in-original No. V(18E)3-14/DA/73/304, dated 3-12-1974, involving differential duty of ₹ 1,12,893.36 was heard and allowed on 27-7-1983 by the Bench. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3-7-1972. On the midnight of 23/24-7-1972 they had in stock a certain quantity of rags and fents of cotton fabrics falling under Item 19-I(2) in which the said duty paid blended yarn had been used. With effect from 24-7-1972, a new Notification No. 168/72-C.E. came into force which fixed higher rates of duty for the said variety of blended yarn. The Department demanded differential duty under this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trospective effect to Notification No. 168/72-C.E., dated 24-7-1972. Their only prayer was that they should not be called upon to pay anything more than the duty already paid by them at the rate in force on the date of removal of the yarn for captive consumption. They stated that this Tribunal had already conceded this point in their appeal No. 97/76-D allowed on 27-7-1983. Though the said appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to the yarn which had been authorisedly removed before 24-7-1972. In these cases, the yarn had not only been removed but also consumed in weaving of fabrics prior to 24-7-1972. In relation to these four appeals, the relevant date under Rule 9A was the date of removal of the yarn and not that of resultant fabrics. Accordingly, we uphold the appellant's plea that their liability was limited to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
