GEEDEE STOLL PVT LTD Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, dated 30-9-1987. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants were availing of the benefit of Notification 95/83 till 28-2-1986, when by an amending Notification 178/86, dated 1-3-1986 the input relief in respect of stampings was taken away. The appellants, however, continued to avail of the benefit for the period 1-3-1986 to 31-3-1986 under the impression that the provisions of Rule 56A(8) made available the benefit which was taken away by the amending Notification 178/86. The lower authorities, however, ruled that this benefit was no longer available to the appellants with effect from 1-3-1986.

(2.) The learned Consultant for the appellants pleaded that the provisions of Rule 56A(8) when read liberally would entitle the appellants to the benefit which was originally available under Notification 95/83. In this connection he drew my attention to the Rule, which for convenience of reference is reproduced below:

(3.) I observe that the benefit of sub-rule (8) of Rule 56A has been made available only in respect of such of those commodities which also stood notified under Rule 56A but on account of the introduction of the new Tariff the same fell out of the ambit of Rule 56A, because the Tariff heading under the new Tariff for the same was changed. Under Rule 56A the benefit was available only in respect of such commodities which fall under the same Tariff heading. The appellants were at the relevant time before 1-3-1986 enjoying the benefit not under Rule 56A but under the Notification 95/83 and the appellants' product was deleted from the Schedule to the said Notification. By virtue of this deletion the appellants became disentitled to the input relief in respect of their product. Inasmuch as this item in question was not earlier enjoying the benefit under Rule 56A, notwithstanding the fact that in terms of Notification 95/83 the appellants were observing Rule 56A procedure, the appellants will not be eligible for the benefit of the sub-rule (8) which only is available in respect of the items which under the erstwhile Tariff stood covered under Rule 56A. It is observed that when the substantive concession was available under Rule 56A only when the appellants would be entitled to the benefit of sub-rule (8) of Rule 56A. In the present case the substantive concession was not available under Rule 56A but under Notification 95/83. In this view of the matter I find no merits in the appeal and reject the same.