2011 (4) TMI 158 - AT - Central Excise

Concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 5/98-CE dated 2.6.98 - The issue of Notification No. 5/98, list 8 appended to the predecessor Notification namely 57/95-CE dated 16.03.95 covered not only complete Pollution Control Systems but also parts thereof - Parts were left out from the coverage of the Notification under interpretation but reintroduced by Notification No. 32/98 dated 21.09.98 In view of the decision of Bharat Textiles & Proofing Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE , 2010 -TMI - 78733 - CESTAT, CHENNAI - Appeal is allowed in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 5/98-CE to parts of Fly Ash Handling System.
2. Interpretation of Notification No. 5/98-CE and its applicability to complete systems or parts thereof.
3. Legal principle regarding retrospective effect of subsequent clarificatory notifications.
4. Application of judicial precedents regarding retrospective effect of clarificatory notifications.

Analysis:
1. The case revolved around the denial of the benefit of a concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 5/98-CE to parts of Fly Ash Handling System cleared by the assessees, who were manufacturers of Industrial Pumps and parts thereof, during a specific period. The denial was based on the interpretation that the Notification applied only to complete systems and not their individual parts, resulting in a confirmed demand of Rs.71,499.

2. Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal noted that prior to Notification No. 5/98, the predecessor Notification 57/95-CE covered both complete Pollution Control Systems and their parts. However, parts were excluded from the coverage under the interpretation of the later Notification. Subsequently, Notification No. 32/98 reintroduced parts within the ambit of the notification. Citing the decision of the apex Court in WPIL Ltd. Vs. CCE, Meerut 2005, the Tribunal held that the later Notification was clarificatory and not granting exemption for the first time. Therefore, for the period between the two Notifications, during which the item was eligible for exemption, no duty could be demanded. This legal principle was also upheld in the case of Bharat Textiles & Proofing Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chennai 2010, leading the Tribunal to set aside the demand on the parts of the Fly Ash Handling System and allow the appeal.

3. The Tribunal's decision was based on the understanding that the subsequent Notification did not introduce a new exemption but merely clarified the existing position, making it retrospective in nature. By following established judicial precedents, the Tribunal concluded that no duty could be demanded for the period when the item was covered under the exemption and subsequently clarified to include its parts.

4. The Tribunal's reliance on judicial precedents, especially the decision of the apex Court and its application in similar cases, highlights the consistent interpretation of the retrospective effect of clarificatory notifications. This approach ensures a fair and consistent application of tax laws and exemptions, preventing undue financial burden on assessees due to changing interpretations of notifications.

(Order pronounced and dictated in the open Court)