2000 (7) TMI 723 - AT - Central Excise

Notification - Amendment to - Effect of - Appellate Tribunal s jurisdiction - Policy matter - SSI Exemption

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 231/85-C.E. and its applicability post 1-4-1994.
2. Effect of amending Notification No. 25/94 introducing Explanation-4.
3. Availability of benefits under Notification No. 1/93 for specified items.
4. Dispute over specific rate of duty vs. ad valorem rate of duty.

Analysis:

1. The main issue in the appeal was the interpretation of Notification No. 231/85-C.E. and whether the appellants could continue to enjoy its benefits after 1-4-1994. The amendment by Notification No. 25/94 introduced Explanation-4, stating the Notification would be in force until 31st March 1994. The appellants argued that since another Notification rescinded No. 231/85-C.E. on 1-3-1995, they should still avail its benefits until then. However, the authorities denied this claim, stating the Notification was made dormant after 1-4-1994 by Notification No. 25/94.

2. The Respondent contended that the amendment in Notification No. 25/94 effectively ended the applicability of Notification No. 231/85-C.E. after 31-3-1994. The Tribunal agreed with this interpretation, emphasizing that the amendment made the Notification inactive after 31-3-1994, regardless of its subsequent rescission on 1-3-1995. Therefore, the authorities were correct in denying the benefits post 31-3-1994.

3. Additionally, the appellants argued that they could not avail benefits under Notification No. 1/93 for the specified item due to a specific rate of duty. They claimed that if the duty was ad valorem, they would have been entitled to a nil rate of duty. However, the Tribunal clarified that during the relevant period, the goods attracted a specific rate of duty, making them ineligible for benefits under Notification No. 1/93.

4. The dispute over specific rate of duty versus ad valorem rate of duty was considered a policy matter falling under the government's jurisdiction. The Tribunal stated that they could not intervene in such policy matters as it would exceed their authority. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, emphasizing that their role was limited to interpreting the Notifications and not delving into policy considerations, thereby upholding the authorities' decision to deny the benefits claimed by the appellants.