2002 (3) TMI 72 - HC - Central Excise

Court dismisses challenge to Order No. 327, emphasizes prospective application of amendment. Petition rejected.

MADRAS RUBBER FACTORY LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA

The court upheld the dismissal of the petitioner's challenge to Order No. 327 of 1980, emphasizing the prospective application of the amendment ... Exemption - Notifications Issues:Challenge to Order No. 327 of 1980 passed by the Special Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue regarding Central Excise Revision Application.Analysis:The petitioner challenged Order No. 327 of 1980, dated 22nd March, 1980, which was passed by the Special Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue. The petitioner, engaged in the manufacture of automotive tyres and tubes in factories at Madras, Goa, and Kottayam, sought relief from excise duty levied on tyres and tubes under Tariff Item No. 16 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Central Government had issued Notifications providing exemptions and relief in excise duty for specified commodities to encourage production and incentivize new units.The petitioner applied for the exclusion of its Madras factory from the base clearances calculation to benefit from a Notification dated 16th June, 1976. The Collector of Central Excise, Madras, granted partial permission, limiting the benefit from 8th February, 1977. The petitioner's appeal and revision application were dismissed, leading to the current challenge. The main contention was the retrospective or prospective application of an amendment Notification dated 8th February, 1977, which allowed for the exclusion of factories under specific circumstances.The legal issue revolved around the retrospective or prospective application of the amendment Notification dated 8th February, 1977. The authorities held that the exemption could only operate prospectively from the date of issuance of the Notification. They relied on precedents, including a judgment of the Gujarat High Court and the Supreme Court, emphasizing that notifications under the Central Excises and Salt Act or the Rules cannot have retrospective effect. Consequently, the revisional authority concluded that notifications issued under Rule 8 could not be given retrospective effect. The dismissal of the writ petition was based on this legal position, as the petitioner's claim lacked merit under the prevailing legal interpretation.In conclusion, the judgment upheld the decision to dismiss the petitioner's challenge to Order No. 327 of 1980, emphasizing the prospective application of the amendment Notification dated 8th February, 1977. The legal analysis focused on the interpretation of notifications under the Central Excises and Salt Act, supported by relevant precedents, to determine the temporal scope of relief provisions in excise duty matters.