TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 484X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad v. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Company Ltd. [1996 (2) TMI 138 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], where it was held that where the new levy is imposed, the same is not applicable on the goods manufactured prior to imposition of levy but cleared thereafter and collection of duty at the stage of removal is for the sake of convenience. Once the levy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing as on 28-2-2005. 2. The issue in this appeal is whether the respondent-assessee engaged in the manufacture of chewing tobacco, is liable to pay additional duty of Excise imposed vide Finance Act, 2005 with effect from 1-3-2005 (effective from midnight on the night between 28 February and 1 March, 2005). 3. Heard the parties. 4. We find that the issue in this appeal is similar to the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Rules as prescribed. It is evident that the words in such manner as may be prescribed qualified the words collected and not the word levied . We hold that the facts of this case is squarely covered on all four by the aforementioned Ruling of the Apex Court. Accordingly, the appeal of revenue is dismissed. The respondent-assessee will be entitled to consequential benefit, if any, in accor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
