2004 (3) TMI 447 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 18/97, dated 10-4-97.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore involved the interpretation of Notification No. 18/97, dated 10-4-97. The central issue was whether this notification was clarificatory in nature or not. The Departmental Representative for the Revenue contended that the notification was prospective. Conversely, the Counsel for the Respondents argued that the substitution of the old notification with new provisions indicated a clarificatory nature. The Counsel cited the decision of the Supreme Court in Belapur Sugar & Allied Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad and the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Commissioner of Cus., Bangalore v. Central Manufacturing Technology Institute to support the clarificatory interpretation of such notifications.

The Counsel highlighted that in the case law references, it was established that notifications amending earlier provisions and substituting terms were considered clarificatory and retrospective in nature. Relying on the legal precedents, the Tribunal accepted the argument presented by the Respondents. Consequently, the Tribunal found no fault in the impugned order and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The decision was based on the principle that when an old notification is substituted with new provisions, it is deemed to be clarificatory in nature, as established by legal authorities and precedents cited during the proceedings.