TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (12) TMI 244
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ichur, who are engaged in the manufacture of tyre and its exports, applied for permission with the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Trichur, for procurement of 250 metric tonnes of Nylon Yarn under Rule 191-BB from the first respondent herein. The order however, stated that tyre manufacturer should follow the terms and conditions laid down under Notification 33/90-C.E. (N.T.) dated 5-9-1990. A separate certificate was issued along with the order dated 7-10-1991. It was further reinforced that the applicant M/s. Apollo Tyres, Perambra, under the permission granted can get the Nylon Yarn processed into fabrics at the premises of the first respondent herein, on job work basis on fulfilment of the following conditions :- "(1) The quant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No. 211/95(M) dated 25-10-1995, the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), while setting aside the demand with regard to confirmation of duty liability to the extent of Rs. 60,15,625/- on nylon yarn, confirmed the duty of Rs. 10,50,000/- on the tyre cord fabrics cleared by the first respondent. There was further appeal at the instance of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Madras, before CEGAT in Appeal No. 211/95. There was also an appeal by the first respondent against the very same order in so far as it related to levy of duty on Nylon Tyre Cord fabric. In the said appeals an order of remand came to be passed on 16-1-1998 in Order Nos. 1341 and 1342 of 1998. By the said order, while setting aside the original order, remitte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed. Having bestowed our serious consideration with regard to the issues raised, we are convinced with the order of the Tribunal and the order of the Tribunal does not call for interference. In fact the question of law raised have to be answered in the negative. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the first respondent, going by the discretion of the authority in Notification No. 33/90-C.E., dated 5-9-1990, the permission applied for by the first respondent was rightly considered by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Trichur, when the order dated 7-10-1991 granting permission to the tyre manufacturer came to be issued along with the certificate dated 7-10-1991 for manufacture and supply of 250 metric tonnes of Nylon Yarn into ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....M/s. Apollo Tyres Limited, Perambra, without payment of duty which was protected by permission letter dated 7-10-1991. In such circumstances, the subsequent issuance of show-cause notice dated 31-1-1992 to reverse whatever action carried out by the first respondent along with Apollo Tyres Limited on the specious ground that the issuance of such permission could have been validly issued only by the Collector of Central Excise, Trichur, cannot be accepted. The consequential order passed on 16-7-1998 by the Commissioner of Appeals in Appeal Nos. 1341 and 1342 of 1998 were also not justified and therefore, the Tribunal rightly interfered with the said order by holding that the subsequent letter dated 6-1-1992 cannot be taken to have withdrawn t....