2000 (10) TMI 157 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Interpretation of Notification No. 4/97-C.E. (N.T.) and subsequent amendments, eligibility for exemption, applicability of Modvat credit, imposition of personal penalty.

The judgment dealt with an appeal against an Order confirming a duty demand of Rs. 11,14,330.00 on the respondents due to the denial of benefits under Notification No. 19/97-C.E. (N.T.) for Acrylic Yarn production. The Assistant Commissioner held that the conditions of the amended notification were not satisfied by the appellants, leading to the duty demand.

The Assistant Commissioner referred to a Circular clarifying the amended notification but found it not applicable to the case. The contention that an exemption was retrospective under Notification No. 34/97 was rejected as it applied only after its issuance, not prior.

Regarding Modvat credit, the Assistant Commissioner did not accept the claim due to non-compliance with Rule 57G. A duty demand and a personal penalty were imposed on the respondents.

On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Assistant Commissioner's Order, granting relief to the respondents. The Revenue appealed against this decision.

The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) extended the benefit to the respondents based on the intention to exempt the process of dyeing yarn from further duty payment. However, the Tribunal held that strict interpretation of unambiguous notification wording was required, and conditions must be fulfilled for any benefit.

The Tribunal upheld the duty demand but remitted the matter for re-quantification after allowing Modvat credit. The imposition of a personal penalty was set aside due to a genuine dispute over the exemption notification interpretation. The Revenue's appeal was allowed in part.