1999 (1) TMI 171

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fication No. 27/95-C.E., dated 16-3-1995 as regards additional duty of Customs. Subsequent to the clearance of the goods, the authorities realised that the benefit under this Notification had been taken away by subsequent Notification No. 95/95-C.E., dated 26-5-1995. The Less Charge Memo was thereafter issued. The importers in reply claimed the benefit of alternate Notification No. 85/95-C.E., dated 18-5-1995. The Assistant Commissioner relying upon certain case law held that the benefit whereof was not available in view of the wording in the proviso in the said Notification. He held that the Notification would protect indigenously produced waste and would not cover the imported waste. Against this order the importers filed an appeal. The C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt against the importers. However, we find that in the case of the same assessee's the ld. single Judge of the Madras High Court [1994 (73) E.L.T. 33] has chosen not to follow the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court on the observation that other High Courts as well as the Supreme Court in the case of Thermax [1992 (61) E.L.T. 352] had given the law to the contrary. 6. The ld. JDR had laid emphasis on the Division Bench Judgment of Karnataka High Court. In view of the Madras High Judgment we have to look for further case law on this issue. 7. The reference to a number of Judgments including those relied upon by the two authorities is available in the cited Judgment of the Chandigarh Zinc and Residue Pvt. Ltd. [1995 (78....