2003 (11) TMI 187 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Notification No. 1/95-C.E. and subsequent amendment through Notification No. 31/98-C.E. regarding procurement of fuel by 100% ECU under exemption.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with a Revenue appeal concerning the procurement of fuel by the respondents, a 100% ECU, for their plant under an exemption specified in Notification No. 1/95-C.E. The dispute arose due to an amendment introduced on 15-9-1998 through Notification No. 31/98-C.E., which required EOUs to obtain approval from the Commissioner of Customs for procuring fuel, lubricants, and consumable goods. The Revenue contended that supplies obtained after 15-9-1998 without the Commissioner's approval should not be exempted. The adjudicating authority upheld the demand, which was later set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the current appeal seeking restoration of the original order.

The Tribunal noted that the respondents had procured supplies with a CT-3 certificate issued by a competent authority before the amendment. The amendment introduced a new condition at Sr. No. 3B, requiring Commissioner's approval for procurement post-15-9-1998. The Tribunal emphasized that a vested right obtained through a valid CT-3 certificate cannot be nullified by a subsequent condition introduced after the procurement. The Tribunal highlighted that the wording of the amendment only required "approval" and not necessarily "prior approval," indicating that post facto approvals could suffice. As long as the fuel's use complied with the notification's provisions, the benefit should not be denied. Therefore, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal and rejected it, upholding the decision in favor of the respondents.

In conclusion, the judgment clarifies that a valid CT-3 certificate confers a vested right that cannot be invalidated by subsequent conditions introduced after procurement. The Tribunal's interpretation of the amendment emphasized that post facto approvals were acceptable, and denial of the exemption required non-compliance with the notification's provisions. The decision serves as a precedent for upholding rights accrued under valid certificates despite subsequent regulatory changes.