1994 (9) TMI 188

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e. 3. Accordingly, we have gone through the appeal memorandum and the written submissions and allow the DR to make his submissions. 4. The learned DR submitted that in this case the appellants were initially entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 201/79, dated 4-6-1979 in respect of the items falling under TI 68. 5. Subsequently, the notification was amended and the classification of the input `Phenol' falling under Tariff Item 68 earlier was changed to Tariff Item 14 AAA. 6. The appellants said in the meanwhile they had taken credit in respect of the quantity received as inputs but they utilised that quantity for payment of duty on their final product subsequent to the date of the amendment namely 16/17....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Chemicals & Fertilisers Ltd. as reported in 1991 (55) E.L.T. 437 (SC) = 1993 (49) ECR 23 (SC) but that judgment lays down a principle of interpretation in a different context. In the present case we are concerned with a specific explanation incorporated therein and it has to be decided whether the appellant's case was hit by this explanation or not. 10. We have gone through the written submissions filed by the appellants as well as considered the oral submissions made by the Learned DR. 11. We observe that the Learned DR is correct in pointing out that the basic issue to be decided is whether the appellant's case was hit by the explanation incorporated in the amended Notification No. 201/79 and, further whether it was requi....