TMI Blog1995 (3) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the benefit of the notification had they met with the requirement of Rule 56A, the proper course was to permit them to do so rather than denying to them the benefit on the technical ground that the point of time when they could have done so had elapsed and they could not be permitted to comply with Rule 56A after that stage had passed. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the appellants should be permitted to avail of the benefit of the notification by complying at this stage with Rule 56A to the satisfaction of the Department. Appeal allowed and remit the matter to the Collector of Central Excise with a direction to permit the appellants to comply at this stage with the requirements of Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules and claim set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o recover the same. This contention was questioned on different grounds, but before us it was confined to the contention that even if the Revenue is right, the appellants would be entitled to a set off in respect of the excise duty payable under the aforesaid two items on the intermediary product by virtue of Notification No. 71/71-C.E., dated 29th May, 1971. That Notification issued in exercise of power under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excises Rules, 1944, exempts rigid plastic boards, sheetings, sheets and films, whether laminated or not, falling under Item 15A(2) from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as is in excess of 30% ad valorem. The first proviso to that Notification reads as under : "Provided that where, in the manuf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Item 17(2) would take within its sweep treated papers. A fortiori the same would be the position in regard to Tariff Item 19(III). We have, therefore, not permitted the Revenue to raise this contention for the first time in the present proceedings by way of a reply to the contention canvassed on behalf of the appellants. 2.The High Court, however, took note of the fact that no contention had been raised before the Tribunal that the appellants should be permitted to meet the requirements of Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules and, therefore, they cannot be permitted to avail of that benefit in a Writ Petition brought under Article 226 of the Constitution. That indeed was a technical view to take because if the appellants were entitled t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
