2011 (7) TMI 1046 - HC - Central Excise

It is true that the case of the appellant would come under the exemption notification with effect from 16 March, 1995. However the benefits of Notification No. 57/95, dated 15 March, 1995 cannot be extended to the appellant for the period from September, 1994 to January, 1995. In the absence of anything contained in the notification giving retrospective effect, the appellant cannot be heard to say that they are entitled to the benefits of the notification. The Original Authority, Appellate Authority as well as CESTAT concluded the issue against the appellant. The case was decided with reference to the relevant classification and the exemption notification issued by the department. Since it was only by interpreting the notification, the authorities rejected the claim made by the appellant. We do not find any substantial question of law involved in this matter.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of "Wind Mill Towers" under Chapter sub-heading 8412.00 and denial of exemption under Notification No. 205/88.

Analysis:
The appellant, a manufacturer of "Wind Mill Towers," initially filed for classification under Chapter sub-heading 8412.00 to claim exemption under Notification No. 205/88. However, the authorities directed a fresh classification under Chapter sub-heading 7308.20, denying the exemption. Despite a show cause notice, the appellant did not respond, leading to the classification under 7308.20 and rejection of exemption benefits. The order was upheld by the Appellate Authority based on prior decisions, confirming the correct classification under 7308.20, thus disqualifying the appellant from the exemption.

The Appellate Authority noted that during the relevant period (September 1994 to January 1995), Wind Mills were classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 8412.00, making manufacturers eligible for the exemption. However, the goods produced and cleared during that period, specifically "Towers for Wind Mills," were classified under 7308.20. The Appellate Authority upheld the classification under 7308.20, as per the Assistant Commissioner's decision, leading to the appeal to CESTAT.

CESTAT observed that during the period in question, "Towers for Wind Mills" fell under Chapter sub-heading 7308.20, and only later, from March 16, 1995, were parts of Wind Mills exempted. Consequently, CESTAT dismissed the appeal, finding no merit based on the classification and exemption timeline. The appellant's contention that the Towers were rightly classified under 7308.20 was supported by previous decisions and the specific classification for "Towers for Wind Mills."

While the appellant could benefit from Notification No. 57/95 effective from March 16, 1995, it could not claim retrospective benefits for the period from September 1994 to January 1995. The authorities, including the Original Authority, Appellate Authority, and CESTAT, ruled against the appellant based on classification and exemption notification interpretation. The judgment concluded that there was no substantial legal question, leading to the dismissal of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal without costs.