1983 (3) TMI 285 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal allows concession for tyre manufacturers under Central Excise Notification

The Tribunal rejected the Department's narrow interpretation of Central Excise Notification No. 47/72, ruling that manufacturers of tyres or tubes were ... - Issues: Correct interpretation of Central Excise Notification No. 47/72 regarding entitlement to concessional rate of duty for manufacturers of tyres or tubes based on clearances in the preceding financial year.Analysis:1. Interpretation of Notification No. 47/72: The central issue in this case revolved around the correct interpretation of Central Excise Notification No. 47/72, dated 17-3-1972, specifically regarding whether manufacturers of tyres or tubes were entitled to the concessional rate of duty of 40 per cent ad valorem in the following financial year if they had not cleared any tyres or tubes during the preceding financial year. The appellants contended that the Notification did not explicitly require clearances in the preceding year to avail of the concessional rate, emphasizing the importance of the total value of clearances not exceeding specified limits. They argued that a narrow interpretation by the Department would defeat the purpose of the Notification, which aimed to assist small-scale industries with duty concessions.2. Appellants' Argument: The appellants' counsel highlighted that other Notifications, such as C.E. Notification No. 89/80, contained provisions allowing manufacturers who had not cleared certain goods in the preceding financial year to still benefit from exemptions, subject to fulfilling conditions. They argued that the absence of a similar provision in Notification No. 47/72 did not warrant a different interpretation, especially considering the Notification's objective to support small-scale industries. They pointed out the potential anomaly where a manufacturer with even one clearance in the preceding year would benefit while those with no clearances would be denied, stressing the need for a broader interpretation.3. Department's Argument: On the contrary, the Department argued that the Notification's language implied actual clearances in the preceding financial year for manufacturers to qualify for the concessional rate in the subsequent year. They opposed the appellants' stance and maintained that the prescribed limits referred to in the Notification necessitated real clearances in the previous year to avail of the benefits in the following year.4. Tribunal's Decision: After considering both parties' submissions, the Tribunal rejected the Department's narrow interpretation and adopted a broader view to uphold the Notification's purpose. The Tribunal ruled that the Notification did not explicitly require actual clearances in the preceding year but focused on ensuring that the total value of clearances did not exceed specified limits. Drawing parallels with other Notifications supported by the appellants, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants, having not cleared any tyres or tubes in the financial year 1972-73, were entitled to the benefits of Notification No. 47/72 during 1973-74, subject to meeting other conditions specified in the Notification. Consequently, the Appellate Collector's order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, directing the Assistant Collector of Central Excise to provide consequential relief to the appellants within 60 days of the order's communication.