2007 (8) TMI 345 - SC - Central Excise

Whether the appellant was not entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 208/83-C.E. dated 1-8-1983 on the final product falling under Tariff Item No. 25(9)(ii)? Held that - By the amendment relatable to Notification on 27-3-1987 items which were earlier not included were specified as inputs have been included. That being so the contention that the amendment merely clarified the notification as it stood prior to the amendment is not untenable. Looked at from any angle the High Court s order does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. The appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to order passed by Division Bench of Gujarat High Court dismissing writ petition against orders of Customs, Excise & (Gold) Control Appellate Tribunal, West Regional Bench, Mumbai.

Detailed Analysis:
The case involved a show cause notice issued to the appellant regarding exemption under Notification No. 208/83-C.E. Allegations included contravention of Central Excise Rules and Act leading to evasion of duty. Appellant contended no ill-intention or suppression of facts, thus penalty should not be imposed. Adjudicating Authority held duty and penalty were leviable, which was upheld by CEGAT. CEGAT ruled that the amendment to the notification on 27-3-1987 had prospective application and duty was to be reduced by the duty payable from 27-3-1987 to 31-8-1987, with the penalty reduced as well.

The appeal before the High Court reiterated the stands taken before the Adjudicating Authority and CEGAT. The High Court held that the notification was not intended to have retrospective effect, and thus dismissed the writ petition. The appellant argued that the amendment was clarificatory, contrary to the CEGAT's view of prospective application. The Circular dated 31-3-1987 supported the prospective effect of the notification, as it stated that certain products would "now" be exempt from excise duty.

The Court emphasized the meaning of "retrospective" and "retroactive" laws, highlighting that the Circular clearly indicated prospective application by using the term "now." The Court concluded that the High Court's order did not have any infirmity warranting interference, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. Consequently, Civil Appeal No. 855 of 2006 was also dismissed in view of the earlier dismissal of Civil Appeal No. 5109 of 2002.