2016 (10) TMI 513 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of SSI Notification denied - denial of claim for period of 26 days i.e., during 1.4.2002 to 26.4.2002 - Held that - After going through the wordings of the Notification No.8/2002-CX dated 1.3.2002, which was amended by the Notification No.26/2002-CX it is clear that the legislature had no intention to charge duty on the subject item viz., granite slab falling under Chapter Heading No.6807 during the relevant period i.e., during 1st April 2002 to 26th April 2002. There is no liability of payment of duty for the subject item for the period of 26 days as the policy of the Government of exempting the subject item from duty has been consistent, which becomes clear from the wordings of the clarificatory Notification No.26/2002-CX and this Notification No.26/2002 made the position explicit which was earlier implicit. Consequently this appeal deserves to be allowed on merits.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Appeal denying SSI Notification benefit for 26 days in 2002.

Analysis:
1. The appellant contested the denial of SSI exemption for polished granite slabs under Chapter 6807 for 26 days in 2002. They argued that Notification No.26/2002 allowed the SSI exemption benefit for the subject item during the relevant period. The appellant relied on the Notification's specific provisions to support their claim of no central excise duty liability for the mentioned period.

2. The appellant emphasized that the legislative intent, as per Notification No.26/2002, was not to charge duty on polished granite slabs during the disputed period. They referred to the clear wording of the notification, which included the subject item under the benefit of Notification No.8/2002. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument, highlighting the specific mention of goods falling under Chapter Heading 6807 in the notification.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the wording of Notification No.26/2002 in detail, noting that clearances made at nil rate of duty during the relevant period would not be charged duty. They referenced a Supreme Court decision supporting the interpretation that no duty demand could be made for the subject item during the 26-day period in question. The Tribunal concluded that the consistent policy of exempting the subject item from duty, as clarified by the notification, justified allowing the appeal.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief to the appellant based on the detailed analysis of the notifications, legislative intent, and relevant case law. The judgment was delivered on 03/10/2016, in favor of the appellant.