1994 (5) TMI 27

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... arises in the following circumstances: 3. The petitioner is a manufacturer and exporter of H. Acid (Dye-Intermediate). Naphthalene is one of the inputs used in the manufacture of H. Acid. Before the commencement of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 both the aforesaid input as well as the end product fell under tariff item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. 4. The  petitioner  at  that  time  was  availing  proforma  credit  under Rule 56A, Central Excise Rules, 1944 as both the input as well as the end product fell under one common tariff item. Subsequent to the coming into force of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Naphthalene was classifiable under sub-heading 2707.40. 5. On October 6, 1986, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e of the final products specified in the corresponding entry in column (5) of the said Table." Sr. No. Sub-Heading No. Description of Inputs Chapter No. Description of final products 1. 2707.40 Naphthalene 29 Dye Intermediate 2. 2707.40 Naphthalene 30 Pharma-ceutical Products 3. 2707.40 Naphthalene 32 Pigments, Synthetic Organic Dyestuffs 4. 2707.40 Naphthalene 34 Leather Tanning agents 6.  During August 1988 the petitioner exported three consignments of Dye-Intermediate (H-Acid) in regard to which it filed a claim with the Excise authorities amounting to Rs. 5,31,954.05 as per the following details :- SP 1 No. & date AR 4 No. & date Amt. of duty Rs. Amt. of duty adj. in set off register 30/30-8-1988 62/ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... emption. 9. The petitioner not being satisfied with the order of the primary authority filed an appeal but the same was rejected by the Collector of Customs, Central Excise Appeals, Bombay by its Order dated March 19, 1990. Thereupon the petitioner carried the matter in revision before the Government of India but the revision also failed and the appellate decision was upheld. It is against this order of the revisional authority that the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the petitioner has not made out a case for our interference with the order of the first respondent (Government of India). The view of the first respondent is that Notification No. 432/86 exempts the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X