2003 (11) TMI 455 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Notification No. 9/99-C.E. regarding withdrawal of benefit during the financial year.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) by the respondents who are engaged in the manufacture of copper winding and bare copper wire. They opted for availing the benefit of Notification No. 9/99-C.E. and started clearing excisable goods under the SSI Notification from 1-4-1999. Subsequently, from 1-9-1999, they began paying duty at the normal rate after filing a fresh declaration. The adjudicating authority held that once the benefit of the notification was opted for in a financial year, the manufacturer cannot withdraw from it. The respondents appealed, and the Commissioner (Appeals) ruled in their favor.

The Revenue contended that as per condition 2(i) of Notification No. 9/99-C.E., a manufacturer cannot withdraw from the notification once the option is exercised for the remaining part of the financial year. On the other hand, the respondents argued that by filing a fresh declaration and paying duty at the normal rate, they did not withdraw from the notification's benefit.

The Tribunal examined the language of condition 2(i) of Notification No. 9/99-C.E., which states that the option once exercised cannot be withdrawn during the remaining part of the financial year. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Novopan India Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad, the Tribunal emphasized that notifications must be interpreted based on the clear meaning of the words used, without room for intendment. The Supreme Court's decision highlighted the importance of adhering to the plain terms of exemptions in taxing statutes.

Based on the Supreme Court's decision and the clear language of the notification, the Tribunal concluded that once a manufacturer opts for the benefit of Notification No. 9/99-C.E., they are bound by its terms for the entire financial year. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal of the Revenue was allowed.