2015 (3) TMI 206 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of Notification No.24/2012-CE, dt.08.05.2012 - Levy of duty on the product TOW - TOW arises during the course of manufacture of Polyester Staple Fibre (PSF) and Polyester Staple Yarn (PSY) - Held that - by Clause 103 of Finance (No.2) Bill 2014, it proposed by a retrospective amendment for exemption to TOW which comes into existence during the period 29.06.2010 to 07.05.2012 - Gazetted copy of the Finance Bill which has been produced and note the fact that by said Clause No.103 of the Bill it is rightly stated by ld.Counsel. We are informed Honble President of India was pleased to assent the Finance Act, 2014 and there is no change in said Clause No.102 and 103 of the Finance Bill, 2014. - As there is legislative intent to exempt TOW by a retrospective amendment and that the period involved in this case is covered by the retrospective amendment, we are of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Exemption of TOW during the manufacturing process from duty liability.
2. Interpretation of Notification No.24/2012-CE for PSF and PSY products.
3. Legislative intent for retrospective amendment regarding TOW exemption.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the duty liability on TOW, a product arising during the manufacture of PSF and PSY. The appellant claimed exemption under Notification No.24/2012-CE for their final products. However, the adjudicating authority held that the exemption did not apply to TOW. The appellant referred to a retrospective amendment proposed in the Finance (No.2) Bill 2014, seeking exemption for TOW created between 29.06.2010 to 07.05.2012. The Circular F.No.334/15/2014-TRU and the Gazetted copy of the Finance Bill supported the appellant's claim.

2. Upon reviewing the legislative intent behind the retrospective amendment and considering that the period in question fell within its scope, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order demanding duty on TOW was incorrect. The Tribunal found that the retrospective amendment aimed to exempt TOW during the specified period. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant.

3. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of the legislative provisions and the specific exemption clauses under the Finance Act, 2014. By recognizing the retrospective nature of the amendment and the applicability of the exemption to TOW, the Tribunal upheld the appellant's claim for exemption from duty liability on the product arising during the manufacturing process. The judgment highlighted the importance of legislative intent and the need to align adjudication with statutory amendments to ensure fair treatment of taxpayers.