2008 (2) TMI 233

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Paper v. CCE - 2006 (200) E.L.T. 365 (S.C.). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee M/s. Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd. was engaged in the manufacture of various products such as poly tubes, micro tubes and HDPE pipes which together as per assessee's say were parts of irrigation system which was used for agricultural purposes and was entitled to benefit of Notification 46/94 dated 1-3-94 which exempted mechanical appliances of a kind used in agriculture or horticulture falling under Chapter Heading 84.24. The Commissioner in his order has accepted the eligibility to exemption provided under Notification but has come to a conclusion that once the assessee was ava....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion did not carry a specific condition to this effect, yet the provisions of Rule 57C of Central Excise Act, 1944 have to be read into it, and in interpreting the notification recourse to reading the provisions of Rules is mandatory and is settled law. It is a settled law that provisions of Central Excise Rules prevail over notification and by virtue of the provisions of Rules 57C and 57CC and the fact that the credit of duty has been availed on the inputs, the final product was not eligible to duty free clearances. In support thereof reference was invited to the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Paper cited supra wherein at para 13 the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the provisions of Rule 57C and observed that Rule 57C would....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ndestine manner and therefore this credit was required to be reversed and could not have been utilized for payment of duty in respect of final goods cleared on payment of duty. 6. ROM application further contends that the benefit of Notification 46/94 has been wrongly allowed as what was exempted under Notification was mechanical appliances used in agriculture and horticulture only and this exemption was not available in respect of parts of appliances. The goods in question i.e. Poly tubes etc. were parts of appliances and therefore not entitled to exemption. 7. We have considered the submissions. We are unable to accept the plea of the applicant that exemption under Notification No. 46/94 dated 1-3-94 was dependent on the fact that wheth....