2001 (9) TMI 956 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of benefit of Exemption Notification No. 89/95 for glass scrap.
2. Interpretation of Notification terms regarding manufacturing of excisable goods.
3. Dispute over intention to manufacture dutiable goods.

Issue 1: Denial of benefit of Exemption Notification No. 89/95 for glass scrap:
The case involves Revenue appeals arising from the denial of the benefit of Exemption Notification No. 89/95 for glass scrap falling under a specific category. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the original order denying the benefit, leading to the rejection of a refund claim. The Notification specifies conditions for exemption, stating that it applies only if no dutiable goods are manufactured. The appellants argued that they only manufactured exempted goods during the relevant period, supported by documentary evidence. The Tribunal found merit in the appellants' submissions, noting that they started manufacturing dutiable items only after a specific date. The Tribunal directed the AC to extend the benefit and sanction the refund as per legal provisions.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Notification terms regarding manufacturing of excisable goods:
The Revenue contended that the appellants had an intention to manufacture dutiable goods, which should disentitle them from the Notification's benefit. However, the Tribunal disagreed, emphasizing that the Notification clearly states that during the relevant period, only exempted goods should be manufactured for the exemption to apply. The Tribunal referenced various judgments supporting this interpretation and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision.

Issue 3: Dispute over intention to manufacture dutiable goods:
The dispute centered on whether the appellants' intention to manufacture dutiable goods in the future should impact their eligibility for the exemption. The Revenue argued for a broader interpretation, while the appellants emphasized compliance with the specific terms of the Notification. The Tribunal sided with the appellants, emphasizing that the Notification's language focused on the actual manufacturing during the relevant period, not on future intentions. The Tribunal's decision aligned with the Commissioner (Appeals)'s interpretation and dismissed the Revenue's appeal based on the clear terms of the Notification and relevant legal precedents.