TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (12) TMI 210
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent plant duly registered and licenced by the Ministry of Industry, Govt. of India. The appellants are working under prescribed licence capacity and there is no dispute also on this fact. The effective rate of duty on cement produced by mini cement plant by virtue of Notification 23/89 (as amended) is [Rs.] 115/- per M.T. Thus only condition which remains for the compliance of above notification is the licenced capacity for which there is no dispute. 3. Above concessions have been granted to mini cement plants to enable themselves to meet the higher cost of production because of their low capacity. The appellants therefore filed classification list claiming exemption of concessional rate of duty under Notification 23/89-C.E. as amen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the plain meaning of the notification has to be read and the same cannot be interpreted on the supposed intention or intendment of the Government. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court decision in the case of H.H. Dave, Asstt. Collector v. H.M. Dave, appearing in 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 350). It has been held by the Collector that the letter issued by the Superintendent (T) Central Excise is not binding on the hypothetical ground that it never came to knowledge of the department. As the noticees kept the department informed about the manufacture of cement out of bought out clinker and when they further filed relevant document like RT 5/RG 16 and RT 12 returns and they had submitted all the information, suppression of fact could not have been ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e conditions but the benefit has not been denied on this ground but due to non-fulfilment of other conditions; And he would like to cite the judgments reported in 1995 (78) E.L.T. 362 and 1996 (87) E.L.T. A53 in support of his contentions. Further the Collector had noted that the appellants had failed to disclose the fact that the cement could be manufactured out of clinker manufactured in another factory. This was a vital omission and clearly amounted to suppression of facts having a bearing on the revenue. Under the circumstances the Collector was right in holding that the extended period of limitation would apply and the demand of duty and imposition of penalty were justified. 8. We have considered the above submissions. We obser....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve effective rate of duty is as per Notification No. 23/89-C.E., dated 1-3-1989 (as amended) and this Notification does not envisage any condition with regard to clinker. In other words, irrespective whether Cement is manufactured out of bought out Clinker or Clinker manufactured in your own factory shall not make any difference and the effective rate of duty shall be Rs. 115/- per M.T. only plus spl. (as applicable) provide other conditions of the Notification are satisfied." Thus the appellants belief was fortified by Superintendent's concurrence and they could not be blamed if they continued to claim the benefit accordingly. The Classification Lists granting exemption was also duly approved and the assessments were being made accordin....