2005 (9) TMI 150 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Admissibility of capital goods credit on spares, components, and accessories of machines under Heading No. 84.74 of the CETA Schedule received between 23-7-96 and 31-8-96 for manufacturing activity.

Analysis:

1. The appeal questioned the admissibility of capital goods credit on components/spares/accessories of machines under Heading 84.74 received between 23-7-96 and 31-8-96. The lower authorities allowed the credit based on Notification No. 25/96-C.E. (N.T.) dated 31-8-96, which added goods under Heading 84.74 to the list of modvatable capital goods under Rule 57Q. The Department contended that machines under Heading 84.74 were excluded during the mentioned period, thus the respondents were not entitled to avail capital goods credit.

2. The Department argued that the amendment adding Heading 84.74 to the list of Modvatable capital goods was not retrospective. However, the consultant cited a precedent where a similar amendment was considered clarificatory and hence retrospective. The Tribunal's decision in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. was relied upon to support the retrospective effect of the amendment.

3. The Member considered the Commissioner (Appeals) reliance on the J.K. Synthetics Ltd. case and found that it did not clearly establish the retrospective effect of Notification No. 25/96. The Member concluded that the lower appellate authority erred in assuming retrospective effect based on the cited judgment, as the notification did not explicitly state retrospective application.

4. It was emphasized that statutory provisions are generally prospective unless expressly made retrospective. The Notification in question did not indicate any retrospective operation, and the amendment adding Heading 84.74 was a substitution under Rule 57Q(1), which does not imply retrospective application. Therefore, the amendment could not be given retrospective effect.

5. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed based on the principle that statutory provisions are prospective unless explicitly or implicitly made retrospective. The decision highlighted the importance of clear indications for retrospective application in statutory provisions.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved and the reasoning behind the decision rendered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT in Chennai.