TMI Blog2002 (11) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are not exempted goods. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the impugned judgment and set aside the same. Parties fairly agree that the High Court has not decided the question of virus of the proviso to Notification No. 202 of 1988.We, therefore, restore the Writ Petition to the file of the High Court. The High Court to decide the limited question of virus of the proviso to Notification No. 202 of 1988 on the grounds urged in the petition. - 6159 of 1995 - - - Dated:- 13-11-2002 - S.N. Variava and B.N. Agarwal, JJ. [Order]. - These appeals are against the order dated 8-9-1994 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. The question involved in these appeals is whether the respondents were entitled to the benefit of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 202 of 1988 reads as follows :- "Exemption to certain final products of iron and steel made from specified input materials and falling under Chapter 72 or 73 or heading 84.54 - In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 90/88-Central Excises, dated the 1st March, 1988, the Central Government hereby exempts goods of the description specified in column (3) of the Table hereto annexed (such goods being hereinafter referred to as "final products") and falling within Chapter 72, Chapter 73 or heading No. 84.54 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondents filed writ petitions which have been disposed of by the common impugned order. In the writ petitions, respondents challenged the virus of the proviso in Notification No. 202. They also claimed that they were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 1 of 1993, as goods included in the table of Notification No. 202 must be deemed to be exempted goods irrespective of whether or not a party was entitled to avail of exemption of Notification No. 202. It was claimed that value of goods specified in the table could not be counted for the purposes of counting the assessable value under Notification No. 1 of 1993. This contention appears to have found favour with the High Court. The further reasoning of the High Court appears to be c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
