TMI Blog1979 (6) TMI 40X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of so much of the duty.of excise leviable under Item (d) of Item No. 27 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 as is equivalent to the duty already paid on the aluminium in crude form or on the aluminium manufacturers under sub-items (a) or (b) of Item No. 27. The procedure required to be followed for obtaining the exemption under this notification was to file an application under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Trade Notice No. 136A (MP)/ALLMINIUM (3)31965 issued by the Bombay Central Excise Collectorate on August 25, 1965. The petitioner accordingly filed an application seeking permission under Rule 56-A on September 8, 1965. By this application, the exemption was sought in respect of the alum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er sub-items (a) and (b) of Item No. 27 of the Central Excise Tariff. The petitioner was informed that the Audit report indicates that the items of aluminium i.e. aluminium flat bars falling under sub-item (d) of Tariff Item No. 27 were also imported. The petitioner was informed that to regularise the matter, they should make an application for permission to bring the product under sub-item (d) of Tariff Item No. 27. As per this notice, the petitioner did apply for a permission to import items covered under sub-item(d) of Item No. 27 of the Tariff on February 24, 1968. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay granted the application by his order dated September 2, 1968 but directed that the permission so granted would be applicable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of India in granting exemption in respect of the goods covered under sub-item (d) of Tariff Item No. 27 only from the date of the application i.e. February 24, 1968 is illegal and irrational. According to the learned Counsel, the permission should have been granted not from the date of the application but from the date when the notification came into force i.e. April 3, 1965. There is no merit in this contention. It was urged by the learned Counsel that it was the policy of the Government to grant exemption in respect of the items covered under sub-item (d) of Tariff Item No. 27 from the date of the notification and the advantage of this notification should not be denied to the petitioner solely on the ground that the application was n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
