2004 (2) TMI 162

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ication No. 6/2000-C.E., dated 1-3-2000, from payment of special excise duty subject to the condition that, if the use of such tyres and tubes was in a place other than the factory of production, the procedure under Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was followed. In order to obtain tyres and tubes duty-free from their suppliers, the appellants on 3-3-2000 applied to the proper officer of Central Excise for the requisite CT-2 Certificate under the Chapter X procedure. The CT-2 Certificate was issued by the department only on 9-3-2000. Upon receipt of the said Certificate, the appellants started obtaining tyres and tubes without payment of special excise duty from M/s. MRF Ltd. But, during the interregnum (4-3-2000 to 9-3-2000), the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t Order-in-Appeal No. 483/2003, dated 28-10-2003. Ld. Counsel has also relied on the Tribunal's decision in CCE v. TISCO [1988 (36) E.L.T. 320 (Tribunal)]. Reliance has also been placed on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in CCE v. M.P.V. & Engg. Industries [2003 (153) E.L.T. 485 (S.C.)]. 4. Opposing the above arguments of the counsel, ld. SDR has relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CCE, Ahmedabad v. Cadila Laboratories (P) Ltd. [2002 (142) E.L.T. 279 (S.C.)] and the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in CCE, New Delhi v. Avis Electronics (P) Ltd. [2000 (117) E.L.T. 571 (T-LB)] and has argued that the requirement of following Chapter X Procedure was mandatory for the benefit of Notification No. 6/2000-CE and, therefore, in respec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f Central Excise for permission to avail the procedure as early as on 6-10-1982. But such permission was granted by the department only in April, 1983. The question arose as to whether, during the intervening period, the assessee was entitled to avail the benefit of the Notification. This question was answered by the Tribunal in the affirmative. In the case of M.P.V. & Engg. Industries (supra), considered by the Apex Court, the assessee had claimed the benefit of SSI exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., for which they had to be an SSI unit registered with the Directorate of Industries. The assessee had applied to the competent authority for provisional SSI registration on 3-12-1986 and for permanent registration some time after Feb....