2004 (1) TMI 519 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Exemption from payment of duty under the SSI scheme on specified excisable goods cleared during a specific period.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the issue of whether the appellants were entitled to exemption from payment of duty on excisable goods cleared during a particular period under the SSI scheme. The appellants had been clearing goods without duty payment under Notification 202/88-C.E. until 29-2-1992. However, this changed with the amendment through Notification 33/92 on 1-3-1992, which excluded the goods in question from the exemption. Subsequently, Notification 53/92 on 10-3-1992 restored the exemption but without retrospective effect. The lower authorities denied the exemption during the brief period from 1-3-1992 to 10-3-1992 based on this sequence of notifications. The appellants argued that Notification 53/92 aimed to rectify an anomaly in Notification 33/92 and should be considered as having retrospective effect. However, the tribunal rejected this argument, emphasizing that Notification 53/92 was an independent notification not intended to amend with retrospective effect. The tribunal also dismissed the argument that the benefit of doubt should favor the assessee in cases of ambiguous exemption notifications, asserting that there was no doubt regarding the intent of Notification 53/92.

The tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal was based on the clear interpretation of the notifications in question. It was established that Notification 53/92 did not have retrospective effect and was an independent notification unrelated to Notification 33/92. The tribunal found no ambiguity in the intent of Notification 53/92 that would warrant giving the benefit of doubt to the assessee. Consequently, the tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority's decision to deny the benefit of exemption to the goods cleared by the appellants during the specified period. The judgment underscores the importance of a precise understanding of notification provisions and their implications, highlighting that the absence of retrospective language in a subsequent notification precludes retrospective application, even if issued to rectify an anomaly in a prior notification.