TMI Blog1987 (2) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken by Tribunal accepted - appeal dismissed. - 943 of 1986 - - - Dated:- 9-2-1987 - O. Chinnappa Reddy and V. Khalid, JJ. [Judgment per : Chinnappa Reddy, J.]. - This appeal is directed against a judgment of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal in regard to the manner and sequence in which certain notifications under Rule 8, sub-rule (1) of the Central Excise Rules granting exemptions from duty have to be worked out. By a notification dated August 1, 1974 the Central Government, in exercise of its powers under sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, exempted, "Tyres for motor vehicles falling under sub-item (1) of Item No. 16 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd 18(3) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) (hereinafter referred to as the specified goods) from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon (read with any relevant notification issued under the said sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 and in force for the time being) as is in excess of (a) eighty-seven and a half per cent, of such duty, if produced in any factory which commenced production of the specified goods for the first time earlier than the 1st day of April, 1976; and (b) seventy-five per cent of such duty, if produced in any factory which commenced production of the specified goods for the first time on or after the 1st day of April, 1976, Subject to the conditions that :- xxx xxx xxx ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted the notifications dated June 16, 1977 and July 14, 1978. The notification dated July 14, 1978, it is to be noticed, has super-added the words "read with any relevant notification issued under the said sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 and in force for the time being." These super-added words show conclusively that the notification dealing with exemption to the extent of the duty paid on the inputs, which was already in force, had to be given effect before giving effect to the notification dated July 14, 1978. This was the submission of Shri A. Subba Rao, learned Counsel for the department and it is difficult to see any escape from it. The case upon which reliance was placed by Dr. Singhvi does not appear to have any relevance to the question at is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
