TMI Blog1997 (1) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Central Excise Tariff. The said goods were exempted from the whole of the excise duty leviable thereon until 27th February, 1982. On 28th February, 1982, by reason of a Notification which, we have ascertained, was issued under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules (being Notification No. 52/82-C.E.) the effective rate of duty on the said goods became 8 per cent. ad valorem. On 22nd April, 1982 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Collection of Taxes Act, 1931; that this Notification had been withdrawn when Notification dated 21st April, 1982, restoring total exemption was issued and the Finance Act passed; and, therefore, the duty paid at the rate of 8 per cent. ad valorem as aforestated was refundable. The Tribunal found the case covered by its earlier order in the case of M/s. Jindal Paper and Plastic Ltd. v. Collector ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... visions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931, applied and that, since the Finance Act had not been passed levying duty on the said goods at the rate of 8 per cent. ad valorem, the duty collected for the period during which the Finance Bill was pending was refundable. 4. Section 4 of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931, states that a declared provision sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f duty was again nil. During the period 28th February, 1982 to 21st April, 1982, the rate of duty was 8 per cent. ad valorem by reason of an exemption Notification issued under the provisions of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules. The decision in Vazir Sultan's case squarely applies, as was observed by this Court when it allowed the appeal of the Revenue in the similar case of M/s. Jindal Paper an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
