2004 (9) TMI 549 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Small Scale Exemption Notification No. 9/2001 and its subsequent amendment by Notification No. 47/2001.
2. Application of the amendment retrospectively.
3. Calculation of aggregate value of clearances for home consumption under the notification.
4. Duty demand confirmation by the Revenue Department.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by M/s. Texplas India Pvt. Ltd. against the confirmation of duty demand by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Small Scale Exemption Notification No. 9/2001. The Appellant argued that they manufacture parts of arms & ammunition falling under Heading 93.06 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, not covered by the SSI Exemption Notification. They highlighted an amendment by Notification No. 47/2001, which impacted the calculation of aggregate clearances for the financial year 2001-2002. The Appellant contended that the Revenue Department wrongly interpreted the amendment and confirmed the duty demand, crossing the exemption limit on 25-8-2001. They emphasized the non-retrospective nature of the amendment and cited a relevant case law (Diamond Cables v. CCE, Mumbai -1998) to support their argument.

In response, the Revenue Department, represented by Shri D.N. Chaudhary, supported the findings of the impugned Order and stressed the specificity of the amendment in Notification No. 47/2001. They argued that the Department merely implemented the amendment without applying it retrospectively.

Upon considering the submissions, the Tribunal delved into the provisions of Notification No. 9/2001 and the subsequent amendment by Notification No. 47/2001. The Tribunal highlighted that the amendment introduced a change in determining the aggregate value of clearances for home consumption, particularly for goods falling under Heading 93.05 to 93.07. The proviso in the amendment mandated that clearances between April to September 2001 should be considered while calculating the aggregate value for partial exemption. The Tribunal concluded that the demand of duty confirmed by the Revenue Department was within the legal framework of the amended notification. Consequently, the appeal was rejected.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of the Small Scale Exemption Notification and its amendment, emphasizing the specific language of the proviso and its impact on calculating clearances for partial exemption. The case illustrates the importance of understanding the legal implications of notification amendments in excise duty matters.