9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 848X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /75621, E/75622, E/75623, E/75624, E/75625, E/75626, E/75627, E/75628, E/75629, E/75630, E/75631, E/75632, E/75633, E/75634, E/75635, E/75636, E/75637, E/75638, E/75639, E/75640, E/75641, E/75642, E/75643, E/75644, E/75645, E/75646, E/75647, E/75648, E/75649, E/75650/2016 & E/75702, E/75703, E/75704, E/75705, E/75706, E/75707, E/75708, E/75709, E/75710, E/75711, E/75712, E/75713, E/75714, E/75715/2016 ORDER Per Shri Devender Singh, 1. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants in these appeals are engaged in the manufacture of Handmade Branded Paper Rolled Biri which were classifiable under sub-head 2403 19 29 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. During the period April, 2012 to February, 2013 they were clearing their final products by paying Central Excise duty at a rate of Rs. 21 per thousand in terms of Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012. The revenue felt that the said notification did not cover the aforesaid goods and asked the appellants to pay duty at the tariff rate of Rs. 30 per thousand and demand for differential duty was raised. The same was adjudicated and in his adjudication order the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand along with interest and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure and therefore takes effect retrospectively from the date of original notification. He relied upon the following case laws in his support: (i) Collector of Central Excise, Shillong vs. Woodcraft Products Limited reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 23(S.C.) (ii) WPIL Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut, U.P. reported in 2005(181) E.L.T. 359(S.C.). (iii) Ralson (India) Ltd. vs. commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I reported in 2015(319) E.L.T. 234(S.C.) 3. Ld. AR reiterated the findings in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and pointed out that there was no record of any representation having been made in the impugned period to the Government to rectify the so called error. As such it cannot be held that the Notification No.12/2014-C.E was clarificatory in nature. He further contended that notifications have to be strictly interpreted. He relied upon the case law of Amin Merchant vs. Chairman, Central Board of Excise & Revenue [2016(338)E.L.T. 164(S.C)]. 4. Heard both sides and perused the available record. 5. We find that the question to be decided is whether the Notification No.12/2014-C.E. dated 11.07.2014 was clarificatory in nature and whether the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eir Lordships found that, by issuing that Notification, the Government was correcting its mistake or having omitted to specify parts of PD pumps in the earlier Notification No.46/94-C.E. We find that an analogous situation is not obtaining in the instant case. The relevant exemption Notification was rescinded on 1-3-1994 and a fresh Notification was issued on 16-3-1995 was issued to clarify anything in relation to waste and scrap for any past period. There is no evidence of the industry having pointed out any government omission and having won the Government into issuing a clarificatory Notification. In the circumstances, the cardinal principle that an exemption Notification should be strictly construed will rule the roost. So construed, Notification No.23/95-C.E. , dated 16-3-1995 which did not contain express provision for retrospective operation, could have only prospective operation". 7. We further find that in the context of facts brought out above, the Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly analysed the question of reading legislative intention behind Notification No.12/2012-C.E. We completely agree with the findings of the Commissioner(Appeals) in paragraph 7.4 of his order, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the public interest so to do, by special order in each case, exempt from the payment of duty, under circumstances of an exceptional nature to be stated in such order, any goods on which duty is leviable. The Court under Article 226 of the Constitution would not be justified in usurping the jurisdiction which is vested in the Central Government. Parliament has conferred that power on the Central Government on specific grounds of public interest. The exercise of the power may in a given circumstance be challenged on the ground that it has been exercised on a basis extraneous to what is contemplated by sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 25. That would not justify the Court, on a plea such as that has been raised in the present case, to direct the Central Government to issue a notification in the first instance." 8. It is pertinent to note that the judgment of Bombay High Court in Amin Merchant (Supra) was upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amin Merchant vs. Chairman, Central Board of Excise & Revenue [2016(338)E.L.T. 164(S.C.). In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: "31.In Re Issue No. 1 : The whole thrust of the appellant is that the proposals of the Fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
