9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (2) TMI 257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceived by the appellants only on 13-3-2002. He pleads that the appeal has been filed within time on 14th May, 2002. Shri M.K. Gupta, learned Jt. C.D.R. raises preliminary objection that the appeal should be dismissed on the ground of time bar. However, he is not able to produce any postal record or any other proof of delivery of the order-in-appeal to the appellants before 13-3-2002. 2. The leaned Advocate states that Notification No. 176/86-C.E., dated 1-3-86 was amended by Notification No. 56/92-C.E., dated 31-3-92 debarring unregistered small-scale units from availing exemption under Notification No. 175/86. However, a further amendment by Notification No. 67/92-C.E., dated 22-5-92 allowed the exemption for unregistered units till 31-3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any proof of delivery of order-in-appeal to the appellants before 13-3-2002, we reject the contention that the appeal is time barred. In view of the Larger Bench decision in the case of CCE, Mumbai v. Automats (India) - 2000 (119) E.L.T. 34, we also dispense with the pre-deposit and proceed to decide the case on merit. It is a clear case where an amendment was made to Notification No. 175/86 by amending Notification No. 55/92, dated 31-3-92 making the appellants ineligible for small-scale exemption with effect from 1-4-92 as they had no SSI registration. The situation changed with effect from 21-5-92 with further amendment made to Notification No. 175/86 by amending Notification No. 67/92, dated 22-5-92 restoring the exemption to the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oing the earlier changes made by Notification No. 55/92, dated 31-3-92. In this regard we observe the following :- 1. Notification No. 67/92, dated 22-5-92 contains no provision expressly stating that it will have retrospective effect from 31-3-92. 2. When this notification published in the Official Gazette has not indicated that it will have retrospective effect, mere departmental letter from TRU, a branch of the Ministry addressed to the Collectors of Central Excise cannot give the said notification retrospective effect. 3. In fact, the Ministry issuing exemption notification under Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has no specific power to grant exemption with retrospective effect. 4. In the past, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C.E., dated 21-5-92, the restriction imposed by Notification 55/92-C.E., dated 31-3-92 came into effect only from 1-4-93. This meant that the operation of the second proviso stood suspended during 1-4-92 - 31-3-1993. In the result, the said proviso did not affect anybody s right during 1992-93. An interpretation by ignoring the rule-making authority s clarification of the purpose of Notification 67/92-C.E. might lead to an anomalous and unintended situation in which an SSI unit could be held to be ineligible for exemption for a part of the financial year 1992-93 and to be eligible for the remaining part of the financial year. Such interpretation in our view, should be eschewed. In our view, there is no enigmatic expression in the said No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
