1996 (10) TMI 428 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of conditions in exemption notification.
2. Impact of subsequent amendment notification.
3. Retrospective effect of subsequent notification.
4. Compliance with conditions for availing exemption.

Interpretation of conditions in exemption notification:
The case involves an appeal against an order related to availing exemption under a specific notification for manufacturing gases. The issue revolves around the conditions stipulated in the notification, particularly concerning the eligibility criteria for Small Scale Industry (SSI) units and the impact of subsequent amendments on entitlement to the exemption. The appellants argued that they were entitled to the exemption under the initial notification and subsequent amendments affected their eligibility.

Impact of subsequent amendment notification:
A subsequent amendment notification excluded manufacturers registered with the Directorate General of Technical Development (DGTD) from availing the exemption. The appellants continued to avail the exemption despite this amendment, leading to a demand for recovery by the department. However, a subsequent notification was issued, restoring the status quo ante subject to fulfilling specific conditions. The appellants contended that they were entitled to the benefit under this new notification, which essentially nullified the impact of the previous amendment.

Retrospective effect of subsequent notification:
The subsequent notification, No. 174/89, was analyzed in terms of its retrospective application. The notification referred to public interest and set conditions based on past financial years, indicating a retrospective effect in allowing the benefit to be availed of. The government's intention was inferred from the language of the notification and its reference to specific financial years, suggesting a retrospective nature in certain aspects.

Compliance with conditions for availing exemption:
The tribunal examined whether the appellants met the conditions specified in the subsequent notification, No. 174/89, for availing the exemption. It was established that the appellants had availed the benefit of the initial notification during the relevant financial year and that the aggregate value of their clearances met the stipulated criteria. As a result, the tribunal concluded that the appellants had fulfilled the conditions outlined in the subsequent notification, rendering them re-entitled to the exemption benefit. The demand for recovery was deemed unnecessary, and the appeal was accepted based on the compliance with the conditions for availing the exemption.