TMI Blog2006 (8) TMI 224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imes. It is his contention that this provision in the Finance Act reinforces his argument as above regarding the nature of levy being a fresh one and an earlier exemption not being applicable to such fresh levies. It has been contented on behalf of the appellants that the issue has been dealt with by the Large Bench in the case of Fabworth (India) Ltd. v. CCE Nagpur - 2002 (143) E.L.T. 663 where it has been decided drat Notification 2/95 grants exemption to all levies in excess to 50% of basic Custom duty." Hon'ble Bench passed the order as under : "After hearing both sides and perusal of case records including the case laws cited, we are of the view that the Larger Bench has not considered the fact that the exemption Notification is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Section 3 of the Act (1 of 1944), (the Central Excise Act) vide Section 109 of the Finance Act, 2000." On a plain reading of the provision of Section 3, amended retrospectively, with effect from 11-5-1982, the levy of duty imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 to be reckoned in case of EOUs will need the reckoning of duty under Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962 also the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or any other Act to determine the total duty to be paid on DTA removals from such EOUs. However, levy under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or any other Act to determine the effective levy, would stand exempted in full, since the relevant notification i.e. No. 2/95 prescribes that goods manufactured in such an unit and allowed to be so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore we cannot subscribe to an interpretation that the levy under 'any other law' introduced by retrospective amendment could be recovered in addition in excess of 50% as provided by the Notification No 2/95 as submitted by the Ld D.R or in any quantum. The wordings of the notification 2/95 are explicit. They would exempt all duties, whatever they may be, in excess of 50% of the duties under Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962. The notification 2/95 has to be read after the 'deemed' levy. Demand levy cannot be placed on a separate pedestal. (b) If the interpretation of the Revenue is considered, then there is no reason which could be arrived to restrict the levy under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 up to 50% by reading the notification, whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the period earlier to that amendment the entire amount of levy 'or under any other law for the time cannot be reckoned. (c) We have also considered the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Fabworth (India) Ltd v. CCE, Nagpur - 2002 (143) E.L.T. 663 (LB-Tri) and find that the Larger Bench in that case has considered the levies under Section 3 and the exemption notifications in the correct perspective and we find that the said findings do not require any reconsideration. 3. In view of our findings hereinabove, the reference is answered in terms that the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Fabworth (India) Ltd v. CCE, Nagpur - 2002 (143) E.L.T. 663 (LB-Tri) does not require any reconsideration. The matter may be placed befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
