2000 (8) TMI 232 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of Notification No. 8/96-C.E. and Notification No. 33/96-C.E.
- Retrospective application of the clarificatory notification.
- Calculation of clearances of cement for concessional rate of duty.
- Application of Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules in confirming duty demand.

Interpretation of Notification No. 8/96-C.E. and Notification No. 33/96-C.E.:
The appeal involved a dispute arising from the interpretation of Notification No. 8/96-C.E. and Notification No. 33/96-C.E. regarding the clearances of cement by the appellants. The Commissioner confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 77,57,790/- based on the clearances made by the manufacturers of cement. The appellants argued that the notifications should not be given retrospective operation and that the clearances under Notification No. 12/95-C.E. should not be included in the total clearances for the financial year. The Tribunal analyzed the language of the notifications and concluded that the intention was to limit the benefit to 99,000 tonnes of clearances in a financial year. The Tribunal held that the subsequent clarificatory notification, No. 33/96-C.E., rectified any inherent mistakes and clarified the intention of the original notification. The Tribunal found no error in the Commissioner's order regarding the interpretation of the notifications.

Retrospective application of the clarificatory notification:
The appellants contended that the clarification brought about by Notification No. 33/96-C.E. should not be given retrospective effect. However, the Tribunal disagreed with this argument, stating that the clarification was necessary to remove any ambiguity in the original notification and to ensure that the benefit of concessional duty was limited to 99,000 tonnes in a financial year. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to apply the clarificatory notification retrospectively.

Calculation of clearances of cement for concessional rate of duty:
The appellants argued that their clearances under Notification No. 12/95-C.E. should not be included in the total clearances for the financial year as it was not mentioned in Notification No. 8/96-C.E. However, the Tribunal found that the intention of the notifications was clear in limiting the benefit to 99,000 tonnes of clearances in a financial year, regardless of specific mention of certain notifications. The Tribunal held that the appellants were not entitled to benefit beyond the specified limit based on a strict interpretation of the notifications.

Application of Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules in confirming duty demand:
The Commissioner confirmed the duty demand under Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules, despite finding no clandestine removal by the appellants. The Tribunal noted that the show cause notice explicitly mentioned the appellant's wrongful availing of the notification benefits and the incorrect approval of the classification list. The Tribunal held that the demands under Section 11A could be confirmed for a period of 6 months, and the incorrect quoting of the rule did not invalidate the order. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the duty demand based on the findings regarding the application of Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules.