2016 (10) TMI 513

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... SSI Notification for the period of 26 days i.e., during 1.4.2002 to 26.4.2002. 2. The appellant has been represented by learned advocate, Shri Raghavendra B. Hanjer and the Revenue has been represented by learned AR, Shri Mohammed Yousuf. 3. The learned advocate based on his appeal memorandum and written submissions inter alia submits as under: * For the relevant period of 26 days i.e., during 1.4.2002 to 26.4.2002, Revenue mistakenly did not include the subject item viz., polished granite slabs falling under Chapter 6807 in the SSI Notification No.8/2002-CE dated 1.3.2001. The learned advocate for the appellant submits that for the subject item, polished granite slab, benefit of SSI exemption was withdrawn by Notification No.11/2002 da....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erates the findings given by the lower Revenue authorities. 5. We have carefully considered the facts of the case, the submissions made by both sides, and the case law quoted. 6. After going through the wordings of the Notification No.8/2002-CX dated 1.3.2002, which was amended by the Notification No.26/2002-CX (supra), it is clear that the legislature had no intention to charge duty on the subject item viz., granite slab falling under Chapter Heading No.6807 during the relevant period i.e., during 1st April 2002 to 26th April 2002. To make the position more clear, the Notification No.26/2002-C. Ex. dated 27.4.2002 is reproduced below: NOTIFICATION No. 26/2002-Central Excise, Dated: April 27, 2002 In exercise of the powers conferred by....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n, after clause (I), the following shall be inserted, namely :- "(J) refund of duty paid on clearances made before the 27th day of April, 2002 on the ground that such clearances are included in the aggregate value of clearances under Sl. No. 1 of the said Table, shall not be admissible."; (c) in the Annexure, - (i) item (v) and the entry relating thereto shall be omitted; (ii) for item (vii) and the entry relating thereto, the following shall be substituted, namely;- "(vii) all goods falling under sub-heading No. 3605.90;". 6.1 We refer to the following wordings given in Col. 3 at Clause (a) in the table annexed to the Notification No.26/2002 (supra) given above: "Provided further that the clearances for home consumption of goo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t nil rate of duty. The meaning and implication of above wordings are in favour of the appellant, who argues that there is no liability of duty for the subject item during relevant period of 26 days i.e., from 1.4.2002 to 25.4.2002. We find that Hon'ble Supreme Court s decision in the case of WPIL Ltd. (supra) also supports the stand that for the intervening period of 26 days (1.4.2002 to 26.4.2002) there cannot be any demand of duty for the subject item. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case inter alia observes as under: "14. In our opinion, therefore, the authorities were in error in upholding the demand and in directing the appellant to pay excise duty. 15. The learned Counsel for the appellant is also right in relying upon a de....