9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 338 - AT - Central ExciseValuation - Benefit of N/N. 9/2003-CE dated 1.3.2002 - retrospective effect of notification - Held that - the relevant N/N. 67/2003-CE dated 11.8.2003 amending the N/N. 9/2003-CE dated 1.3.2003 came into effect only from 11.8.2003. Therefore, as per computation of aggregate value of clearance of all excisable goods for home consumption manufactured by the appellant exceeds ₹ 300 lakhs for the preceding financial year. Consequently, the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of N/N. 9/2003-CE dated 1.3.2003. The Hon ble Kerala High Court in the case of CCE & C, Cochin vs. Midas Pre-Cured Tread (P) Ltd. 2008 (6) TMI 218 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM on this issue has clearly held that applicability of benefit of Notification is to be made with effect from the date on which the subject Notification comes into force. The Hon ble Kerala High Court in this case has held that the Tribunal or even the High Court has no power to grant retrospective benefit of the Notification in the interpretation process, unless it is so provided in the Notification itself. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues:
- Appeal against the Order-in-Appeal confirming demand of interest - Claim of benefit under Notification No.9/2003-CE - Payment of differential duty and subsequent demand of interest - Adjudication by Deputy Commissioner and Order-in-Appeal - Applicability of Notification No.67/2003-CE - Interpretation of notification retrospectively Analysis: The appellant appealed against the Order-in-Appeal confirming the demand of interest of ?64,573. The appellant had claimed the benefit of Notification No.9/2003-CE for the year 2003-04 based on the value of clearances of goods manufactured. However, the Department informed the appellant that the value of clearances of job-work goods also needed to be included, making the appellant ineligible for the benefit. As a result, the appellant paid a differential duty of ?6,40,000. The Department later demanded interest due to a delay in payment of the duty, issuing a show-cause notice for ?64,573. The Deputy Commissioner adjudicated the show-cause notice, which was upheld in the Order-in-Appeal. The Tribunal, after considering the facts and submissions from both sides, found that as per Notification No.67/2003-CE, the appellant exceeded the limit for the preceding financial year, making them ineligible for the benefit of Notification No.9/2003-CE. Citing a judgment by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court, the Tribunal emphasized that the benefit of a notification should be applied from the date it comes into force, without retrospective effect unless specified in the notification itself. Referring to the Kerala High Court's decision, the Tribunal held that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of the amended notification retrospectively. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, following the Kerala High Court's ruling and concluding that the impugned order was sustained. The judgment was pronounced on 30.08.2017.
|
