1994 (7) TMI 180 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of exemption Notification No. 122/86, dated 1-3-1986 and amended Notification No. 455/86, dated 21-11-1986.

In the present case, three appeals were heard by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi. Two appeals were filed by M/s. Khandelwal Lab (P) Ltd., while the third appeal was filed by the Revenue against a specific part of the order-in-original. The main contention raised by the appellant was the denial of the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 122/86, dated 1-3-1986. The appellant, represented by Ms. P.P. Bhandari, argued that their product, Vermisole, containing Levamisole Hydrochloride, was eligible for exemption under Sl. No. 16 of the Annexure appended to the said notification. The authorities below had rejected this claim, citing the amended Notification No. 455/86, dated 21-11-1986, as not being of a clarificatory nature. The appellant relied on precedents such as Johnson & Johnson Limited and Parke Davis (India) Ltd. to support their interpretation of the notifications. On the other hand, the Respondent, represented by Shri Somesh Arora, supported the orders passed by the authorities below.

Regarding the appeal filed by the Revenue, it was argued that the question of restricting the demand to six months would only arise if the decision went against the assessee. The Tribunal examined the submissions and noted that the assessee had claimed exemption under Notification No. 122/86, dated 1-3-1986, which was denied for a specific period based on the amended Notification No. 455/86, dated 21-11-1986. Citing the decision in Johnson & Johnson Ltd., the Tribunal held that the amended notification was clarificatory in nature, and the intention was to grant exemption from the inception of the original notification. Consequently, the impugned orders denying the benefit of the exemption were set aside, and the appellant was held entitled to the exemption from the claimed date. Both appeals filed by M/s. Khandelwal Lab (P) Ltd. were allowed with consequential reliefs as per law. As a result, the issue raised in the appeal filed by the Revenue regarding the restriction of demand to six months was deemed unnecessary for consideration.

In conclusion, all three appeals were disposed of accordingly by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, based on the interpretation of the exemption notifications and relevant precedents cited during the proceedings.