9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (12) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion notifications, though not precisely in the same terms. The process of issuance of these exemption notifications took some months. It was realised that by reason thereof manufacturers of exempted items would have to pay duty for the periods between the date on which the new tariff came into force and the dates on which the exemption notifications were issued. It was, therefore, that the Central Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Act, 1986, was passed. It gave retrospective effect to the exemption notifications. What is relevant for our purpose is Section 2, which, so far as is relevant, reads thus : "2. Retrospective effect for certain notifications. - (1) Every notification issued by the Government of India in the Ministry of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en paid have been exported under a claim for rebate of such duties." [The date on which the Central Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Bill was introduced was 8th August, 1986.] 2. The exemption notification that concerns us in this appeal was issued on 3rd April, 1986, and it reads, so far as it is relevant, thus : "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts excisable goods of the description specified in column (5) of the Table hereto annexed (such goods being hereinafter referred to as "final products") and falling under such Chapter, heading No. or sub-heading No. of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) as is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 907.90 Vinyl acetate monomer 55.01 Acrylic fibre 3. The appellants manufacture the final products aforementioned. They claimed the benefit of the said exemption notification, as amended, in regard to the inputs aforementioned. The same was given to them on 29th December, 1986, and they were allowed credit in the aggregate sum of Rs. 61,02,946.48. (This sum took into account the amount of Rs. 34,80,971.95 paid as additional duty). On 3rd January, 1987, a show cause notice was issued to the appellants alleging that the aforesaid credit had been erroneously given, the said notification not having effect retrospectively. The demand therein was confirmed on 7th December, 1987. 4. The appellants challenged the order confirming the demand in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d used to manufacture the final products aforementioned. 7. That the same had been paid would appear to be clear from the order by which the appellants had been given credit therefor; that order was not sought to be recalled on the ground that payment of additional duty had not been made but, it would appear, on the ground that the said notification did not have retrospective effect, and this contention of the respondents the High Court rejected. 8. It is, therefore, necessary to modify the judgment and order of the High Court and hold that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of the said notification and, consequentially, to refund of the additional duty that had been paid on the inputs aforementioned used in the manufacture of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
