TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that their case comes within the conditions stipulated in the exemption notification. Therefore, the Tribunal as well as the adjudicating authority have rightly rejected the case of the assessee. Appeal dismissed - decided against assessee. - C.M.A.No.8 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 14-9-2018 - Mr. Justice T.S. Sivagnanam And Mrs. Justice V. Bhavani Subbaroyan JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr.J.Sankararaman For the Respondents : Mrs.R.Hemalatha JUDGMENT T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. This appeal filed by the assessee, is directed against the order passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zone Bench, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) in the final order No.40345 of 2016 dated 29.02.2016. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ginal dated 31.03.2005, rejecting the claim made by the assessee and confirmed the proposal in the show cause notice. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, by an order dated 29.02.2016 dismissed the appeal. Challenging the same, the assessee has preferred the present appeal. 3. Heard Mr.Sankararaman, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs.R.Hemalatha learned counsel for the respondent. 4. The only point canvassed before us is that the adjudicating authority as well as the tribunal did not consider the benefit of the Notification No.8/98-Central Excise dated 02.06.1998, by which the assessee is exempted from payment of excise duty, since their clearances, even as per the amount mentioned in the show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fication. A manufacturer has the option to not to avail the exemption under notification and to pay the normal rate of duty on the goods cleared by him. Such option, if exercised shall not be allowed to be withdrawn in the remaining part of the financial year 1998-99 59.2.2) I find that by paying duty on scrap cleared during the financial year 1998-99, the MPPL has exercised their option to pay normal rate of duty and they have no option but to pay normal rate of duty for further clearances and the option cannot be withdrawn. Hence they are not eligible for the benefit of Notification 8/98 dated 2.6.98 . 6. The correctness of the above contention was tested by the tribunal and it was confirmed. Learned counsel for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g conditions, namely:- (i) A manufacturer has the option to not to avail the exemption under this notification and to pay the normal rate of duty on the goods cleared by him. Such option shall be exercised before effecting clearances at normal rate. Such option, if exercised, shall not be allowed to be withdrawn in the remaining part of the financial year 1998-99. However, if a manufacturer had exercised such option to pay normal duty with reference to notification No.16/97-CE dated 1st April 1997, the manufacturer is barred from availing of exemption under this notification but he need not exercise a fresh option to pay normal duty with reference to this notification. 7. The Constitution Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
