9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (5) TMI 223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so should not be levied for contravention of Rules 173F and 173G(1) of Central Excise Rules. 2. The ground mentioned in the notice was that the appellants cleared the goods without payment of Basic Excise Duty by virtue of benefit under Notification No. 201/79 and claimed that they were, therefore, not liable for Special Excise Duty also but that they were not correct in taking up such a position. The appellants sent their reply. 3. After adjudication, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta under his order dated 21-1-1980 rejected the contentions of the appellants and confirmed the demand for payment of Special Excise Duty mentioned earlier and further imposed a penalty of ₹ 500/-. The appeal against the said order was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eference to the said Basic Excise Duty, though subsequently, at the time of clearance of the goods, further concession may be granted in respect of the Basic Excise Duty under Notification No. 201 of 1979. 6. Shri Mehta contends that such an approach on the part of the department was incorrect. He pointed out that Section 5 of the Finance Bill, 1980 (under which the Special Excise Duty in dispute was being claimed)was to the effect that the Basic Excise Duty was to be computed with reference to the duty levied under the Central Excises and Salt Act read with any Notification in force in relation to the duty so chargeable. Section 5(1) reads as follows : "5. Special duties of excise - (1) In the case of goods chargeable with a duty of exci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and only from that the set-off under Notification No. 201/79 is to be allowed. If this set-off is allowed before calculating the amount of Special Excise Duty payable by the appellants, it will not reflect the exact liability of the appellants. Since their duty liability to the Special Excise Duty is to be determined on the effective rate of duty, it is to be fixed before granting set-off under Notification No. 201/79. Smt. Zutshi also in her arguments supported this reasoning. We are unable to agree." 8. As earlier mentioned Section 5 of the Finance Bill, 1980 (extracted/supra) does not make any such distinction but generally refers to "any notification for the time being in force issued by the Central Government in relation to the duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
