2008 (1) TMI 191 - AT - Central Excise

Revenue contends that benefit of not. 125/84 can t be allowed to the goods manufactured by assessee in the premises of EOUs on ground that said Notification exempts the excisable goods manufactured in a 100% EOU & also by EOU - A plain reading of the notification reveals that notification doesn t restrict the benefit of exemption to goods manufactured by 100% EOU as contended by Revenue - Notification has to be interpreted as it is & there should not be any intendment exemption is entitled

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification 125/84 dated 26.05.1984 for exemption of excisable goods produced in a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU).
2. Whether goods manufactured by entities other than a 100% EOU are eligible for the benefit of the Notification.
3. Imposition of penalties under various sections of the Central Excise Act.
4. Time bar contention raised by the respondents.

Analysis:
1. Interpretation of Notification 125/84: The main issue revolved around the interpretation of Notification 125/84 dated 26.05.1984, which exempts excisable goods produced in a 100% EOU from excise duty. The Revenue contended that the benefit of the Notification applies only to goods manufactured by a 100% EOU. However, the respondents argued that the Notification is premises-based and applies to all goods manufactured in an EOU, regardless of the manufacturer. The Tribunal agreed with the respondents, emphasizing that the Notification does not contain the word "by" before "100% EOU," and hence, the benefit extends to goods manufactured in an EOU, irrespective of the manufacturer.

2. Eligibility of Goods Manufactured by Non-EOUs: The Revenue disputed the eligibility of goods manufactured by entities other than a 100% EOU for the benefit of Notification 125/84. The Tribunal noted that the Notification does not specify that only goods manufactured by a 100% EOU are eligible for exemption. As long as the goods are manufactured in an EOU, they qualify for the exemption, regardless of the manufacturer. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to grant the benefit of the Notification to the respondents.

3. Imposition of Penalties: The Show Cause Notice proposed penalties under various sections of the Central Excise Act, but the Commissioner's order did not address the imposition or non-imposition of penalties. The Revenue argued for the imposition of penalties, while the respondents contended that no penalties should be imposed. Since the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision regarding the benefit of the Notification, it found no justification for the imposition of penalties. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the Order-in-Original.

4. Time Bar Contention: The respondents raised the issue of the time bar in their cross objection. However, the details of this contention were not elaborated upon in the summary provided. It is essential to review the specific arguments presented by the respondents regarding the time bar to assess the validity of this contention and its impact on the overall judgment.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis of the issues surrounding the interpretation of Notification 125/84, the eligibility of goods manufactured by non-EOUs, the imposition of penalties, and the time bar contention resulted in the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal and the upholding of the Commissioner's Order-in-Original. The judgment clarified the application of the Notification and emphasized the importance of interpreting statutory notifications based on their plain language without adding extraneous conditions.