Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the benefit of Rule 56A(8) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be claimed for the period after deletion of the product from Notification No. 95/83, when the assessee had earlier availed input relief only under that notification and not under Rule 56A itself.
Analysis: The benefit under Rule 56A(8) is confined to commodities that were themselves covered by Rule 56A and later went out of its ambit because of a change in tariff nomenclature or classification under the new tariff. The assessee's product had not been enjoying the substantive concession under Rule 56A; it had only been receiving input relief under Notification No. 95/83 while following the Rule 56A procedure. Once the product was deleted from the notification schedule, the concession ceased. Mere observance of the Rule 56A procedure did not extend the statutory protection of sub-rule (8) to a benefit granted only by notification.
Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to invoke Rule 56A(8) and the denial of input relief was ; the appeal failed.
Final Conclusion: The decision confirms that the saving provision in Rule 56A(8) applies only where the substantive credit had earlier been available under Rule 56A itself, and not where the benefit existed solely under a separate notification.
Ratio Decidendi: A transitional saving clause tied to Rule 56A cannot be extended to preserve a concession that was granted only by notification and not as a substantive entitlement under that rule.