1985 (2) TMI 186

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ard should not be set aside as it appeared to be not proper or correct. 2. The dispute was in respect of the manufacture of acrylic plastic tubes and bangles from methyl methacrylate monomer by M/s. Natwar Lal. The Collector of Central Excise, Ahemdabad ruled that the benefit of exemption Notifications No. 68/71-CE, dated 29-5-1971 and No. 38/73-CE, dated 1-3-1971 was not permissible and that therefore the bangles and tubes produced and cleared in the period January 1977 to December 1979 valued at Rs. 25.26 lakhs should be charged to duty. The Collector also imposed a penalty on the producer. 3. In the appeal the Board set aside the penalty on the ground that there had not been any clandestine removal of the goods. It also held ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ptember 1980, there was no case for recovery of the duty. 7. The learned Counsel for the Department said that the decision of the Gujarat High Court has already been appealed before the Supreme Court by the Government and therefore that decisionwas not final. ; 8. The findings of the Board are wrong on both accounts Notification No. 143/80-CE cannot cover these cases which were cleared more than a year before it was issued. The Board, of course, used this notification in an indirect way by bringing it into operation in conjunction with Rule 9A(5) Central Excise Rules This rule has been misapplied. Rule 9A deals with date for determination of duty and tariff valuation. The provisions of this rule specifies the rates of duty that ....