1995 (9) TMI 85

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er under sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, published Notification No. 88 of 1984 giving exemption from payment of so much of the duty of excise in excess of 80% leviable on tyres. The benefit of the Notification was available, provided the tyres were manufactured in a factory, which is an industrial undertaking, licenced under Section 11 or Section 13 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, and from which the clearance of tyres was effected during April 1, 1976 and March 31, 1984. The first respondent-company had effected the first clearance on October 23, 1979. 3. The company applied before the Director General of Technical Development in April 1984 for issue of certificate as contemplated under the Not....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....etter dated February 19, 1985, expressed difficulties in submitting the information sought for and sought time in case the Director General insists upon submission of the information. The Director General then sent a communication dated January 27, 1986 informing the company that certificate dated July 10, 1984, stands cancelled in view of the failure of the company to furnish the requisite information. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, thereupon informed the company to produce fresh certificate and failure would lead to the benefit to exemption notification being denied. The first respondent-Company challenged the action of the Director General in cancelling the certificate and the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Mysore den....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unity was not given to reply to the notice for cancellation of certificate…..then the Department is again willing to give a fresh opportunity to the company to explain why the demand made by the Director General should not be complied with. The learned counsel for the company objected to the course suggested on the ground that the Directed General had no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for cancellation. Learned Counsel for the Department submitted that even the question as to whether the Director General had jurisdiction can also be agitated by the company in answer to the show cause notice issued. In our judgment the attitude of the department is extremely fair and it is desirable that the Director General should be given opportunit....