1997 (5) TMI 385 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicability of exemption Notification No. 279/86-C.E., dated 24-4-86 under the Central Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Act, 1986.
2. Rejection of refund claim by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise Coimbatore.
3. Decision of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras regarding the effect of Notification No. 279/86-C.E., dated 24-4-86 from 1-3-86.

Analysis:
1. The appeal dealt with the question of whether the exemption Notification No. 279/86-C.E., dated 24-4-86, which amended an earlier exemption notification, fell under the purview of the Central Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Act, 1986. The appellants had cleared motor vehicle bodies under the previous exemption notification and filed a refund claim after the amendment. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) rejected the claim, stating that the amended notification would not have retrospective effect from 1-3-86.

2. Despite the absence of representation from the appellants, the Tribunal proceeded to hear the matter on its merits. The notification No. 162/86-CE dated 1-3-86 was issued during a transition period in the Central Excise Tariff structure. Various exemptions were issued retrospectively due to changes in the tariff structure. The Tribunal noted that the Retrospective Exemption Act aimed to correct unintended changes in duty rates. The amending notification No. 279/86-CE dated 24-4-86 was considered applicable under the Act.

3. The Tribunal found that the amending notification was issued under the powers of the Central Excise Rules, making it eligible for the provisions of the Retrospective Exemption Act. The decision set aside the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) and allowed the appeal, subject to the provisions of the Central Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Act, 1986. The Tribunal highlighted that the refund claim would be subject to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, emphasizing the need to examine the claim in light of the legal framework and relevant judicial precedents.