1999 (2) TMI 370 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Availability of duty exemption under Notification No. 170/89-C.E. for periods prior to its amendment.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Availability of duty exemption under Notification No. 170/89-C.E. for the periods in question.
The appeals were against Order-in-Appeal Nos. 31 & 32/94(c) where Order-in-Original Nos. 14/93 & 15/93 dated 23-12-1993 were upheld. The central issue revolved around the denial of duty exemption under Notification No. 170/89 for the periods 1-6-1989 to 15-8-1989 and 1-1-1989 to 31-5-1989 due to twisting of MS bars after hot rolling. The Revenue contended that the exemption was denied as the amending notification introduced the words "but including those twisted after rolling," hence not applicable retrospectively. Demands for Rs. 1,80,088.25 and Rs. 4,40,902.88 were upheld.

Issue 2: Interpretation of relevant notifications and legal precedents.
The Advocate for the appellants argued that twisting of bars falls under the category of "rods and bars" in the notifications. He relied on legal precedents such as Aluminium Industries case where it was held that mere stranding of wires does not constitute manufacture. The appellants contended that Notification No. 170/89 was clarificatory, citing judgments like Aeron Steel Rolling Mills and Apex Steels, Gautam Cables, and Dalmia Industries. The Respondent reiterated that Notification No. 170/89 did not indicate its clarificatory nature.

Issue 3: Analysis of notifications and retrospective effect.
The Tribunal analyzed the notifications and records, noting that prior to Notification No. 202/88, the appellants enjoyed exemption under Notification No. 90/88-C.E. The wording of Notification No. 202/88 did not explicitly cover bars twisted after rolling. However, Notification No. 170/89 amended 202/88 to include such bars. The Revenue argued that without retrospective applicability mentioned in 170/89, the demands were correctly confirmed. The appellants argued that 170/89 rectified a lacuna in 202/88 and should be applied retrospectively based on legal precedents.

Issue 4: Precedents and retrospective effect of Notification No. 170/89.
The Tribunal referred to the case of Apex Steels Pvt. Ltd. where it was held that Notification No. 170/89 was clarificatory and had retrospective effect. The Tribunal applied this decision to the current case, concluding that the appellants were entitled to the exemption under 170/89 with retrospective effect. Consequently, the Order-in-Appeal was set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief as per law.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented, legal interpretations, and the final decision reached by the Tribunal regarding the availability of duty exemption under Notification No. 170/89-C.E.