2015 (10) TMI 1173 - AT - Central Excise

Supreme Court extends exemption to mine workshops under same management, supporting mining industry.

The Supreme Court, in a case concerning the interpretation of exemption notification No. 63/95-CE, ruled in favor of the appellant. The Court held that ... Benefit of exemption Notification No. 63/95-CE dated 16/03/1995 - exemption from excise duty to goods produced in a mine - workshop within surrounding region or area - Held that:- Appellant was availing the benefit of exemption Notification No. 63/95-CE dated 16/03/1995 which was denied in the impugned order based upon this Tribunal's decision in the case of South Eastern Coalfield Ltd., Vs. CCE, Raipur - [2000 (11) TMI 187 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI]. This view was further confirmed in this Tribunal's decision in the case of the same assessee reported in [2002 (10) TMI 178 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI]. The matter has gone to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide their order dated 01/08/2006 reported in [2006 (8) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] had set aside the order of this Tribunal - Following the said decision - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues: Interpretation of exemption notification No. 63/95-CE dated 16/03/1995.Analysis:The appeal in this case was against Order-in-Appeal No. RK/257 to 258/NGP/C/2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Nagpur. The appellant was previously denied the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 63/95-CE dated 16/03/1995. This denial was based on the Tribunal's decision in the case of South Eastern Coalfield Ltd. vs. CCE, Raipur, and a subsequent decision involving the same assessee. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its order dated 01/08/2006, set aside the Tribunal's order and provided crucial interpretation regarding the term 'precinct' in the exemption notification. The Supreme Court emphasized that the purpose of the exemption was to encourage the mining industry, and thus, a workshop in the environs of a mine, existing solely for purposes connected with the mine and under the same management, should be considered part of the mine for granting exemption. This interpretation aimed to support and promote the mining industry by including such workshops within the scope of the exemption.Therefore, following the Supreme Court's decision, the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant with consequential benefits, if any. The judgment highlighted the importance of interpreting exemption notifications in a manner that aligns with the legislative intent behind the exemptions, in this case, to promote and support the mining industry by extending the benefit to workshops closely associated with mining operations.