2006 (3) TMI 63 - SC - Central Excise

Finding of Tribunal on non-compliance with conditions of Exemption Not. is a finding of fact so cannot be interfered Tribunal s order not been challenged attains finality No new plea can be raised for the first time before SC Not. 83/94 not have retrospective effect so benefit not available

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal.
2. Imposition of Central Excise duty and penalty on the appellants.
3. Interpretation of Notification No. 214/86 and Notification No. 1/93 regarding Central Excise duty liability.
4. Applicability of SSI benefits under Notification No. 1/93.
5. Marketability of goods and exemption from excise duty under Notification No. 214/86.
6. Claim for retrospective application of Notification No. 83/94-CE.

Analysis:
1. The case involved three appeals with identical facts, and the Supreme Court decided to dispose of them collectively. The appeal was filed against the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing copper products, faced duty demands and penalties for non-compliance with Central Excise rules. The Additional Commissioner confirmed duty demands and penalties, which were upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal.
3. The issue revolved around the interpretation of Notification No. 214/86 and Notification No. 1/93 concerning Central Excise duty liability. The Tribunal remanded the case for fresh adjudication to consider the applicability of relevant notifications.
4. The Tribunal examined the SSI benefits under Notification No. 1/93, which were found inapplicable due to the appellants' exceeding specified clearance limits.
5. The Tribunal ruled on the marketability of goods and exemption from excise duty under Notification No. 214/86. The appellants failed to provide evidence of compliance with the notification's provisions, leading to the denial of the exemption claim.
6. The appellants sought retrospective application of Notification No. 83/94-CE, which was rejected by the Supreme Court citing strict construction of exemption notifications and the absence of merit in the submission.

This comprehensive analysis covers the key issues addressed in the legal judgment, outlining the facts, arguments, and decisions made by the authorities and the Supreme Court.