1988 (3) TMI 70 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Notification No. 291/86-C.E. dated 12th May, 1986 for exemption to manufacturers of aluminium circles from excise duty.
Validity of the rejection of total exemption under Notification No. 43/75, dated 1st March, 1975.
Applicability of the notification retrospectively or prospectively.
Effect of amended rules 9 and 49 of the Central Excise Rules on the exemption claim.
Validity of the order of the Appellate Tribunal dismissing the appeal on grounds of limitation.

Analysis:

The High Court of Bombay heard a case involving the interpretation of Notification No. 291/86-C.E., dated 12th May, 1986, which granted exemption to manufacturers of aluminium circles from excise duty. The petitioners, a firm manufacturing aluminium circles, claimed total exemption under this notification. The court noted that the notification provided exemption to aluminium sheets falling under specific criteria and confirmed that the petitioners were entitled to the exemption based on the notification's language. The court emphasized that the exemption extended to the intermediary product in the manufacturing process, leaving no doubt about the exemption's applicability to the petitioners' products.

The court also addressed the petitioners' claim for total exemption under Notification No. 43/75, dated 1st March, 1975. The petitioners argued that they fell under the exempted category as per this notification. Despite initial acceptance of the exemption claim by the 3rd respondent, subsequent actions by the department led to the imposition of excise duty on the petitioners' products. The court found that the rejection of the exemption claim was unjustified, especially in light of the subsequent notification providing clear exemption to the petitioners.

Regarding the applicability of Notification No. 291/86-C.E., the court considered arguments about retrospective versus prospective application. The petitioners contended that the notification should be applied retrospectively, while the respondents argued for a prospective application based on amended rules. The court sided with the petitioners, agreeing that the notification intended retrospective application, as indicated by its language and purpose.

The court also addressed the order of the Appellate Tribunal dismissing the petitioners' appeal on grounds of limitation. Despite the appeal being time-barred, the court found that the dismissal was unjust, especially considering the petitioners' entitlement to exemption under the relevant notifications. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, making the rule absolute in favor of the petitioners and emphasizing the clarity and applicability of the exemption notifications in question.