1995 (9) TMI 179 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Eligibility for benefit of Notification No. 175/86 based on amended criteria.

Analysis:
The appeals before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Madras were against the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad concerning the eligibility of the appellants for the benefit of Notification No. 175/86. The appellants argued that their eligibility criteria should be based on the amendment made by Notification No. 174/89, which excluded the value of branded goods for calculating the aggregate value of clearances as per the proviso to para 3 of Notification No. 175/86. The lower appellate authority rejected the appeals, stating that the provisions of Notification No. 174/89 have prospective effect only. However, the appellants contended that the amended eligibility criteria should be applied prospectively for clearances made after the issuance of Notification No. 174/89.

The learned Counsel highlighted the changes in eligibility criteria under Notification No. 175/86, emphasizing that the exclusion of branded goods' value was intended for all clearances under paras 1, 2, and 3 of the notification. They argued that Notification No. 174/89 should have retrospective effect as it clarified the exclusion of branded goods' value for calculating aggregate clearances. Citing relevant judgments, the Counsel asserted that the amended criteria should apply to clearances made after the issuance of Notification No. 174/89. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative argued that notifications should have prospective effect only.

After careful consideration, the Tribunal observed that the eligibility criterion under Notification No. 175/86 was changed by Notification No. 174/89, and the appellants filed for the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 after the amendment. The Tribunal noted that the proviso to para 3 of Notification No. 175/86 required the exclusion of branded goods' value for calculating aggregate clearances in the previous financial year. It was held that the changed criterion should be applied prospectively for clearances made after the amendment, as intended by the legislature. The Tribunal emphasized that the benefit of the amended criteria was sought for future clearances and not retrospectively. Therefore, the appeals were allowed, and the appellants were granted the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 based on the amended eligibility criteria set by Notification No. 174/89.