2010 (9) TMI 525

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... against the order of the Assistant Commissioner rejecting the refund application has been dismissed. The Assistant Commissioner, Hyderabad by its order dt. 20-9-2001 rejected the refund claim application which was filed by the appellants. The refund claim was for the amount of Rs. 1,02,360/- on the basis of the order passed by the Tribunal dt. 16-7-1997 in appeals No. E/4454/91 and E/1606/96. 2. The appellants are manufacturers of Flexible Poliyurethane Foam. In the process of manufacture of such foam, it generated waste and scrap in respect of which the appellants claimed the benefit available under Notification No. 54/88-C.E., dt. 1-3-1988 as amended by Notification No. 30/90-C.E., dt. 20-3-1990 for the month of March, 1990. The ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....learances of such goods outside the factory, from any factory for home consumption, in any year, by or on behalf one or more manufacturers at the rates specified in column (4), shall not exceed 10% of the total production of flexible polyurethane foam and articles thereof falling under Heading Nos. 39.09, 39.20 or 39.21 of the said schedule in the preceding year" in place of above quoted condition. The notification came into force w.e.f. 20-3-1990, the day on which it was published in the official gazette. 5. The challenge to the impugned order on behalf of the appellants is on the ground that the authorities below failed to see that the appellants had cleared a total quantity of 3840 kgs. of waste, parings and scrap during the mont....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... whereas under the prior notification it was referable to a month. Neither Notification No. 30/90 nor the earlier notification referred to any situation which would contemplate bifurcation of a period in two parts either of one year or of one month for the purpose of consideration of total production. The Notification No. 30/90 also did not disclose that the rights and obligations accrued under the notification which was already in force would stand affected by the new notification even during the period covered by the earlier notification. 8. The Notification No. 37/89 clearly required consideration of 10% of the total production during the immediate preceding month, whereas the Notification No. 30/90 clearly required consideration....