TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (11) TMI 182
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the purpose of Notification No. 71/78 dated 1-3-1978 as amended by Notification. 141/79 and whether Ayurvedic Medicines said to be falling under Tariff Item 68 cleared by the respondents free of duty in terms of Notification No. 55/75 as amended during the period 1978-79 were to be taken into account for working out the aggregate value of clearances of all excisable goods during the preceding financial year for the purpose of the aforesaid exemptions. 2.  It may be stated that the issue relates to a period before amendment of Tariff Item 68 in 1980 whereby an explanation was added on 19-6-1980 to Tariff Item 68 in the following words :- "For the purposes of this item, goods which are referred to in any preceding item in this....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d would be non-excisable. For the purpose they relied on a decision of the Gujarat High Court in Darshan Hosiery Works v. Union of India -1980 ELT 390 (Gujarat). The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) accepting the respondent's contention and following the Gujarat High Court decision held that during the relevant period value of clearances of Ayurvedic Medicines were not includible for determining the value of clearances under the notification in view of the explanation as these were not excisable. 4.  Smt. Chander, learned JDR, representing the appellant Collector Central Excise urges that the respondents had filed classification list classifying their goods i.e. Ayurvedic Medicines including Dantmanjan Lal under Tariff Item 68 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not called upon to meet such a case in the show cause notice earlier served on them with respect to present matter. He also submitted that such a plea was not taken by the Revenue either by the Assistant Collector or before the Collector (Appeals). 7.  Smt. Chander, however, maintained that this decision rather than help the respondents, would help the appellant because the show cause notice dated 8-7-1980 served on the respondents clearly alleged that the respondents had exceeded the value of clearances stipulated under the notification. Copies of the show cause notice were not in our file. But during hearing Shri Lachman Dev supplied copies of the two notices dated 8-7-1980 and stated that these were the relevant notices. Smt. Ch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... present case. The other decision on which Shri Lachman Dev places reliance is the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Balkrishna Malhotra 1971 (81) ITR (S.C.). This report is not available in the Tribunal Library though called for, nor available with the learned Counsel appearing before us. Shri Lachman Dev brought to our notice an article (Show cause notice : Juridical Spectrum by Prof. Dr. D.C Jain, Legal Adviser, Rajasthan Textile Mills) published in E.L.T. dated 1-7-1986 Vol. 25. Part 1. At page A-6 the following observation based on the decision is to be found :- "If there was a judgment of superior Tribunal or of a High Court or the Supreme Court reversing the view of the Department the authorities must follow that judgment in f....