1983 (6) TMI 105 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 7/78 dated 17-1-1978 - retrospective effect.
2. Validity of the appeal filed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise.
3. Cross-objection filed by M/s. New Shorrock Mills, Nadiad.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Interpretation of Notification No. 7/78 dated 17-1-1978 - retrospective effect
The main contention in this case revolves around the interpretation of Notification No. 7/78 dated 17-1-1978, specifically whether it has retrospective effect. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise argued that the notification should not have retrospective effect, while Consultant Shri M.J. Trivedi for M/s. New Shorrock Mills contended that the notification does have retrospective effect based on the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt and Additional Duties of Excise (Amendment) Act, 1980. The Tribunal examined the arguments and held that the peculiar circumstances, including the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act, support the retrospective effect of the notification. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda.

Issue 2: Validity of the appeal filed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise
The Assistant Collector of Central Excise filed the appeal under Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, against the order of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. The appeal challenged the retrospective application of Notification No. 7/78 dated 17-1-1978. The Tribunal found that the appeal lacked justification based on the legal position and the arguments presented by the parties. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.

Issue 3: Cross-objection filed by M/s. New Shorrock Mills, Nadiad
M/s. New Shorrock Mills, Nadiad filed a cross-objection in response to the appeal filed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise. The cross-objection aimed to support the order of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise and did not seek to alter any part of the order. However, the Tribunal deemed the cross-objection as misconceived and lacking validity. As a result, the Tribunal also dismissed the cross-objection filed by M/s. New Shorrock Mills, Nadiad.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the retrospective effect of Notification No. 7/78 dated 17-1-1978, dismissed the appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda, and rejected the cross-objection filed by M/s. New Shorrock Mills, Nadiad.