1995 (1) TMI 227 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of Notification 22/82-C.E. regarding match sticks quantity for benefit eligibility.

In this case, the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Madras, considered a reference application stemming from an order dated 7-7-1989. The Tribunal ruled that the benefit of Notification 22/82 would not apply as the matchbox did not contain the stipulated 50 match sticks. The appellant's counsel primarily focused on whether there was misdeclaration of quantity justifying the withdrawal of concession. The counsel argued against invoking Rule 9(2) for clandestine removal, asserting that while the conditions in the Notification were not fully met, ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the appellant. The respondent, relying on the Collector's comments, emphasized the non-compliance with the 50-match stick requirement, which was not disputed by the appellant previously. The Tribunal had detailed reasons for denying the benefit of the Notification, citing the necessity of fulfilling the conditions specified. The Tribunal also referenced a previous case to support its decision. It was established that the benefit was contingent on match sticks being packed in boxes of 50, a condition not met in this case. The Tribunal held that any ambiguity in the Notification should benefit the revenue, citing a Supreme Court judgment to support this position. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the reference application, finding no grounds for reference.

This judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation of Notification 22/82-C.E. concerning the quantity of match sticks required in a matchbox for eligibility for concessional benefits. The Tribunal emphasized the strict adherence to the conditions stipulated in the Notification, particularly the requirement of 50 match sticks per box. The appellant's argument regarding misdeclaration of quantity and the invocation of Rule 9(2) were considered but ultimately rejected. The Tribunal's decision was supported by a previous ruling and the principle that any ambiguity in a fiscal statute should be resolved in favor of the revenue. The judgment underscores the importance of meeting the specific criteria outlined in notifications for availing of benefits and the courts' inclination to interpret ambiguities in favor of revenue authorities.