1998 (4) TMI 286

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../Revenue. 3. We have carefully considered the matter. The ROM application filed by the applicants is reproduced below : "Most respectfully submitted, (1) That in the said Appeal the question involved is regarding interpretation of Rule 57F(1)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which at the relevant time (4/88 to 8/88) read as under : "Manner of utilisation of the inputs and the credit allowed in respect of duty thereon - (1) The inputs in respect of which a credit of duty has been allowed under Rule 57A may - (i) be used in, or in relation to, the manufacture of final products for which such inputs have been brought into the factory; or (ii) be removed, subject to the prior permission of the Collector of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....if at all to be read is to be read with Rule 9, which lays down that no excisable goods shall be removed from any place where they are manufactured. Rule 9A is applicable in that situation. (5) That the majority judgment relied upon at the time of hearing in the case of CCE v. American Auto Service reported in 1996 (81) E.L.T. 71 (Tribunal) where Ponds India Ltd. judgment 1991 (56) E.L.T. 574 was also considered had after detailed discussions on the words "appropriately" and "effective duty of excise", Rules 173B and 173C, and also the legal fiction, held that - "There is no provision in the CE Act or Rules for re-opening the classification and assessment at the purchasers' end." (6) That though this majority judgment has been ....