1998 (8) TMI 258

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Commissioner (Appeals). The Asst. Collector had held that in fact the demand notice amount was inclusive of the notional credit of Rs. 45,552.77 which the firm had availed along with Modvat credit while it was not allowed to be availed by the said firm against inter-transfer of goods/components from Anand Parbat unit to Naraina Unit. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the Appellants have 2 units-one at Naraina Industrial Estate and the other at New Rohtak Road, Anand Parbat. The Unit at Naraina is engaged in the manufacture of parts and accessories of Motor Car, Scooters, Tractors and Trucks. The unit at New Rohtak Road (Anand Parbat) supplies components for use to the unit at Naraina Industrial Estate from where the final product is cl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vided that the said notification provides for grant of credit in respect of such inputs at such higher rates as may be specified therein." 4. Explaining the position, the ld. Consultant submits that both the units at Naraina Industrial Estate and Anand Parbat were entitled to payment of Central Excise Duty at the same rates provided under Notification No. 175/86. He submits that final product of one unit was being used as an input by the other unit. He submitted that Trade Notice No. 62/86, dated 3-9-1986 was issued by the Delhi Central Excise Collectorate. In para 5 of this Trade Notice, a clarification was given that exemption from duty for interplant transfer of intermediate products has not been allowed; that in respect of interme....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....." 6. The ld. Consultant submitted that with the withdrawal of Notification No. 118/75, the Appellants were entitled to the benefit of Modvat credit and that too under Rule 57B also. He submitted that the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Hemraj Gordhandas v. Asst. Collector of C.E., Surat and Ors. [1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 350)] held that in a taxing statute, there is no room for intendment but regard must be had to the clear meaning of the words. If the tax payer is within the plain terms of an exemption he cannot be denied its benefit by calling in aid any supposed intention of the exempting authority. In a Court of law or Equality what the legislature intended to be done or not to be done can only be legitimately ascertained from that whic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Respondent Commissioner, submits that there was a Notification No. 118/75, dated 30-4-1975 which provided for exemption for captive consumption in the same factory or any other factory of the same manufacturer; that this Notification was rescinded in 3/86 by issue of Notification No. 175/86; that with, the rescinding of this Notification, the position did not change in so far as captive consumption of the goods was concerned. He submitted that for calculating the availability of the concession under Notification No. 175/86, captive consumption was not being into consideration. He submitted that since captive consumption was not taken into consideration, the question of allowing higher notional credit did not arise inasmuch as duty was paid....