2002 (5) TMI 380 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 50/97-C.E. is available to the excisable goods manufactured by the appellant.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The appellant, M/s. Vandana Ispat P. Ltd., filed an appeal to determine if they are eligible for the exemption provided under Notification No. 50/97-C.E., as amended by Notification No. 57/97-C.E. The dispute arose as the Adjudicating Authority had denied the benefit of the notification on the grounds that it was only applicable to manufacturers under the Compounded Levy Scheme.

2. The appellant's consultant argued that the goods manufactured and cleared by them met the criteria specified in the Notification without any condition related to the Compounded Levy Scheme. They cited a similar case where the benefit of the notification was allowed despite not being under the said scheme. Additionally, they highlighted a subsequent notification granting waiver of duty for goods manufactured during the relevant period.

3. The Departmental Representative contended that the exemption notification was linked to Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, emphasizing the need for coherence between the notification and the charging sections. They referenced circulars and notifications issued concurrently to support their interpretation.

4. In response, the consultant reiterated that the exemption power under Section 5A is independent and does not require a direct connection to a specific charging section. They emphasized that the language of the notification should be the primary factor in determining eligibility for the exemption.

5. The Tribunal examined the wording of Notification No. 50/97-C.E. and concluded that the appellant fulfilled all conditions specified therein, making them eligible for the exemption. They cited legal precedents emphasizing that the plain language of the notification should prevail, and any unintended conditions cannot be imposed.

6. The Tribunal highlighted that other notifications accompanying the main notification did include conditions related to Section 3A, indicating a deliberate choice by the issuing authority. Since no such condition was present in the relevant notification, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal and setting aside the previous order.

This detailed analysis of the legal judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved and the reasoning behind the Tribunal's decision.