TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsistent policy of the Government, by granting exemption of compound rubber, withdrawal of exemption by N/N. 64/94 dated 1.3.1994 was an inadvertent error. That Government realizing this mistake had reintroduced exemption which had to be treated as correction / clarification having retrospective effect. Thus, it was held that for the interim period, the compound rubber was not exigible to duty - a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch compound rubber was otherwise exempted from payment of Basic Excise Duty under Notification No.152/87-CE dated 25.5.1987. This notification was rescinded on 1.3.1994. However, after short while, Notification No.74/94 dated 28.3.1994 was issued by the Central Government restoring the benefit of exemption of compound rubber captively consumed. In the result, exemption from payment of basic excis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority confirmed the demand of ₹ 9,95,768/- by order dated 31.3.2005. Against this order, the department as well as the respondent filed appeals before Commissioner (Appeals). Both the appeals were taken up simultaneously by the Commissioner (Appeals) and vide order impugned herein, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal filed by the department but however allowed the appeal file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly the quantification of the duty on compound rubber. That therefore they cannot now contend that the compound rubber is not subject to duty. 4. We have heard the submissions made by both sides. The department has filed appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) who had reduced the duty demand. During the pendency of this appeal, the Hon ble Apex Court has held that in view o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
