2009 (12) TMI 356

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... enforced retrospectively. The facts in brief relevant for the decision are that the appellants are the manufacturer of preparations containing chewing tobacco commonly known as unbranded 'kimam' and 'chewing tobacco' classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 2404.41 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The unbranded chewing tobacco and preparations containing chewing tobacco were subjected to National Calamity Contingent Duty at the rate of 10% ad valorem by virtue of Section 129 of the Finance Bill, 2001. During the period from July, 2001 to February, 2002, the appellants manufactured 34667 kgs. of unbranded kimam and 22480 kgs. of unbranded chewing tobacco totally valued at Rs. 52,68,270/-. They were, however, cleared without payment of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ufactured by the appellants. Drawing our attention to another Notification No. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.) dated 26-6-01, Notification No. 22/2003-C.E. (N.T.), dated 24-3-03, Notification No. 45/2003-C.E. (N.T.), dated 14-5-03 and Notification No. l6/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 10-8-2004 and Circular of Central Board of Excise & Customs No. 641/32/2002-CX., dated 26-6-02, learned Advocate submitted that in terms of these later notifications though the benefit of exemption from NCCD was sought to be applied subsequently i.e. under the last notification by way of amendment, the Board in his circular had clearly clarified that it was the intention of the Government to grant such benefit right from the issuance of the first notification and therefore, same....