TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... puts which have gone into manufacture of the final products which were cleared under Notification No. 175/86, there can be no further demand of excise duty, even though the assessee claimed exemption under Notification No. 217/86. But, if under Notification No. 175/86 the clearance value of the inputs was already excluded in arriving at the aggregate value of Rs. 20 lakhs and claim for exemption of inputs under Notification No. 217/86 relates to different final products which are exempt under a different notification, then the assessee will be liable to pay the duty in demand. We confirm the order of the Tribunal and dismiss these appeals. - 2358-2359 of 2000 - - - Dated:- 12-3-2003 - Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri and Ashok Bhan, JJ. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ivision Gandhinagar, Vidhyalaya, issued a notice to the assessee to show cause as to why the benefit of Notification No. 217/86, dated April 2, 1986, should not be denied to it as its final products were cleared under full exemption and why the central excise duty amounting to Rs. 93,147/- and Rs. 32,607/- should not be demanded. The assessee, in reply, stated that as per Explanation-III of Notification No. 175/86, the clearance value of inputs that were used in the manufacture of final products, was not to be taken into account while computing the aggregate value of the final products. In his order dated December 30, 1992, the Assistant Collector noted that the assessee had availed the benefit of Notification No. 217/86 for the inputs - gl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rence to explanation III under Notification 175/86 is simply not relevant." 5.The assessee carried the matter in further appeals to the Tribunal. By the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the appeals holding that the dispute was covered by its earlier order in the case of Universal Electrical Industries v. C.C.E. [1994 (70) E.L.T. 279]. 6.Inasmuch as the respondent did not enter appearance in spite of service of notice, we requested Mr. V. Lakshmikumaran, Advocate, to assist us as amicus curiae in this case. We record our appreciation for the valuable service he has rendered in putting up the case of the unrepresented respondent to assist the Court. 7.In the light of the contentions of the learned counsel, after giving our anxious c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted that it is not clear from the record as to whether the same inputs in regard to which exemption under Notification No. 217/86 was claimed by the assessee had gone into the manufacture of final products which are said to have been cleared up to a limit of Rs. 20 lakhs. It will suffice to observe that we leave it open to the Excise authorities to verify the said fact. If the claim of exemption under Notification No. 217/86 is in regard to inputs which have gone into manufacture of the final products which were cleared under Notification No. 175/86, there can be no further demand of excise duty, even though the assessee claimed exemption under Notification No. 217/86. But, if under Notification No. 175/86 the clearance value of the input ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
