1988 (9) TMI 183 - AT - Central Excise

Appellate Tribunal grants relief on differential duty dispute, emphasizes limitation provisions over retrospective amendments.

The Appellate Tribunal granted relief to the appellants in a case concerning a demand for a differential duty on matches. The issue revolved around the ... Retrospective levy/revalidation of levy Issues:1. Differential duty on matches.2. Retrospective effect of Notification No. 22/82.3. Applicability of Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act.4. Introduction of fresh arguments about limitation.5. Validity of Notification No. 22/82.6. Effect of retrospective amendment on duty payment.7. Comparison of judgments by Madras High Court and Supreme Court.8. Application of limitation provisions to the case.Analysis:The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal sought relief from a demand for differential duty on matches, citing humanitarian grounds. The issue stemmed from Notification No. 22/82, issued retrospectively from 19-6-1980, affecting clearances made between 19-6-1980 to 31-3-1981. The appellant argued that they were unaware of the duty increase for production exceeding 150 million matches, emphasizing the demand was time-barred and could not override Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in J.K. Spinning Mills v. Union of India.The Departmental Representative opposed introducing fresh arguments on limitation, contending it would create a new case and nullify the Finance Act and Notification. The Tribunal, acknowledging the appellant's unfamiliarity with legal requirements, allowed the additional ground of limitation to prevent injustice. The Madras High Court's judgment in Bharat Match Works upheld the retrospective amendment's validity, rejecting the plea of promissory estoppel against statute.The Tribunal considered the Supreme Court's judgment in J.K. Spinning Mills, emphasizing that Section 11A's limitation provisions should prevail over retrospective amendments, as no provision in the Finance Act or Notification allowed demands beyond Section 11A's scope. Consequently, the Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's ruling over the Madras High Court's decision.Applying Section 11A's limitation provisions to the case, the Tribunal held the demand as time-barred, granting relief to the appellants based on the Supreme Court's interpretation and ordering consequential relief in their favor.