2009 (12) TMI 356

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . 10,000/-. Being aggrieved, the matter was carried in appeal where the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty, but confirmed the demand of duty and the interest by its order dated 29-11-08. Hence, the present appeal. Held that-merely because Circular 641/32/2002-CX., dated 26.6.2002 clarified that exemption to export goods under Notification No. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.) was available from date of first notification, it would not mean that exemption to chewing tobacco/kimam under Notification No. 11/2002-C.E, can be given retrospectively. It was more so as this Notification did not speak of retrospective application.
Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, President and Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (T) Shri Rajesh Chhibber, Advocate, for the Appella .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... demand of duty and the interest by its order dated 29-11-08. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that in terms of Notification No. 5/2001-C.E., dated 1-3-2001, the benefit of exemption from the payment of National Calamity Contingent Duty was extended to the excisable goods like tobacco used for smoking through 'hookah' or 'chilam' commonly known as 'hookah' tobacco or 'gudaku' classifiable under sub-heading 2404.99. The said notification was superceded by another Notification No. 26/01-C.E., dated 11-5-2001, and further it was amended by Notification No. 11/2002 dated 1-3-2002. By virtue of the said amendment apart from the product classifiable under heading 2404.99, the products classifi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed to have been available to the appellant right from the day, the Notification No. 5/2001 was issued. The contentions sought to be raised on behalf of the appellants are controverted on behalf of the respondent while contending that notification in question nowhere disclosed its retrospective applicability and therefore, it cannot be applied prior to the issuance of the notification. Undoubtedly as far as the product manufactured by the appellant is concerned, the benefit has been granted from payment of NCC duty, under Notification No. 11/2002-C.E., dated 1-3-2002. Merely because such benefit was granted under notification dated 1-3-2001 to the product classifiable under sub-heading 2404.99 and that merely because a Board had clarified in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X