1994 (4) TMI 144

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aid on the cost of Metal containers. But as per the Notification No. 191/83, dated 8-7-1983 amending Notification No. 34/83, dated 1-3-1983 and the Explanation inserted thereto, according to the Department, the sizes eligible for exemption have been prescribed. The appellants do not utilise the metal containers as described in the Notification, and as such they cannot avail exemption from duty in the value of metal containers used in the packing of PP food products from 8-7-1983. In the circumstances, show cause notices were issued on 7-1-1984; 21-5-1984; and 10-7-1984 raising demands (i) for Rs. 55,984.93 for the period from 8-7-1983 to 31-12-1983; (ii) for Rs. 35,431.92 for the period from 1-1-1984 to 31-3-1984 and (iii) for Rs. 36,901.29....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ctor is not proper, legal and correct in so far as the matter involved in this case is the question of applicability of the amendment to Notification No. 34/83, dated 1-3-1983. This Notification was amended by Notification No. 191/83, dated 7-3-1983 under which the sizes of container was restricted for the purpose of availing the benefit for exemption. In the instant case, the assessees have availed the exemption in respect of metal container having the sizes other than those specified in the Explanation to the Notification No. 43/83 and therefore the assessees are not entitled to the exemption. By virtue of amendment to the Notification No. 34/83, the quantum of exemption has been restricted to the sizes specified in the Explanation to the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bsequently to the notification. The Explanation, contended the ld. Counsel, is different from a proviso to a notification. The Explanation is only clarificatory. It cannot have the effect of limiting the scope of the exemption. Ld. Counsel also referred to a clarification issued by the Finance Ministry, dated 8-7-1983 in F. No. B.2/4/83-TRU which would also support the appellants' case. 5. Shri M.K. Jain, ld. S.D.R. contended that the Explanation is by way of amendment to Notification 34/83 and it lays down that for the purpose of that notification, the cans of the sizes specified in the Explanation only are eligible for rebate at the rate prescribed therein for each size. It follows, therefore, argued the ld. S.D.R., that cans of o....