TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (3) TMI 259
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gerant Gases falling under Item No. 14H of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff Schedule (CET, for short) of 1944. For this purpose they used to bring into their factory from outside certain chemical inputs like carbon tetrachlorides and chloroform on which the appropriate amount of Central Excise duty under Item No. 68 had already been paid. Central Excise Notification No. 201/79 dated 4-6-1979 exempted finished goods from payment of the excise duty leviable thereon to the extent of the duty suffered under Item No. 68 CET by the inputs used in their manufacture. The exemption was subject to the procedure set out in the Appendix to the notification. Paragraph 5 of the Appendix provided that the manufacturer shall inform the proper officer in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xcises and Salt Act before the Collector (Appeals) contending that the Assistant Collector's order was erroneous and should be set aside. The Collector (Appeals), by his order dated 24-7-1986, allowed the application filed by the Assistant Collector, however, restricting the demand to that for the period of six months preceding the show cause notice. He noted in his order that during the material period the jurisdictional Collector of Central Excise had relaxed the requirement of identification etc. laid down in the Appendix to notification No. 201/79 but held that the Collector had no power to relax the said condition. However, there was no suppression of any material facts on the part of the appellants. It is this order which is now chall....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9 was amended by Notification 13/85 dated 1-2-1985. By this amendment, a proviso was added to paragraph 5 of the 1979 notification empowering the Collector, for reasons to be recorded in writing, to relax the provisions inter alia of clause C of paragraph 5 in the case of any manufacturer or a class of manufacturers. Shri Gopal Prasad submits that since this amendment is of a procedural nature and during the material time the appellants had the requisite permission from the Collector, there was no case for demanding duty from the appellants on the ground that they did not wait for 48 hours before taking the duty paid inputs into consumption. 6. Shri M. Jayaraman, DR, however, submits that the Collector had, during the material time, no pow....