2003 (2) TMI 257 - AT - Central Excise

SSI Exemption - Registration - Notification No. 175/86-C.E. amended by Notification No. 56/92-C.E.

Summary

Issues:
1. Timeliness of the appeal filing.
2. Interpretation of exemption notifications for small-scale units.
3. Retrospective effect of amending notifications.
4. Disagreement with the decision of a Larger Bench.
5. Referral of the case to the President for reconsideration.

Analysis:

Issue 1 - Timeliness of the appeal filing:
The appellant, a small-scale unit without SSI registration, received the order-in-appeal dated 15-3-1999 on 13-3-2002. The appeal was filed on 14th May 2002. The Jt. C.D.R. raised a preliminary objection on the ground of time bar, but failed to produce any proof of delivery before 13-3-2002. The Tribunal rejected the contention of being time-barred due to the lack of evidence of timely delivery.

Issue 2 - Interpretation of exemption notifications for small-scale units:
The appellant cited amendments to Notification No. 175/86 by subsequent notifications, allowing exemption for unregistered units till 31-3-93. Referring to a clarification by the department and previous court decisions, the appellant argued for exemption. The Tribunal noted the changes in the exemption scheme and considered the impact of the amendments on the appellant's eligibility for exemption during the relevant period.

Issue 3 - Retrospective effect of amending notifications:
A clarification issued post-amendment suggested a retrospective effect of restoring the exemption for unregistered units. However, the Tribunal observed that the notification itself did not explicitly state any retrospective application. It emphasized that exemption notifications under the Central Excise Act cannot have retrospective effect unless specified by Acts of Parliament, highlighting the limitations of the rule-making authority in granting retroactive exemptions.

Issue 4 - Disagreement with the decision of a Larger Bench:
The Tribunal respectfully disagreed with a Larger Bench's conclusion that attempted to give retrospective effect to a notification beyond its legal scope. It highlighted the absence of enigmatic expressions in the relevant notification and emphasized the need for specific legislative provisions for retrospective application of exemption notifications.

Issue 5 - Referral of the case to the President for reconsideration:
Due to the differing views with the Larger Bench decision, the Tribunal referred the case to the President for consideration by another Larger Bench. The appellant's reliance on Apex Court decisions was also discussed, emphasizing the limitations of departmental clarifications and the importance of contemporaneous exposition in interpreting legal provisions.

In conclusion, the Tribunal denied the small-scale exemption for the period 1-4-92 to 21-5-92 to the appellant based on the interpretation of relevant notifications and legal principles. The case was referred for further review to ensure consistency and clarity in legal interpretation.