Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether Notification No. 217/86 dated 02.04.1986 granting exemption for captive consumption applied retrospectively from 01.03.1986 by virtue of Section 22 of the Central Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Act, 1986.
Analysis: The dispute concerned duty demand on scooter parts captively used in the manufacture of scooters during the period between the introduction of the new tariff and the issuance of Notification No. 217/86. The Act of 1986 was relied upon as the statutory basis for giving retrospective effect to notifications issued during the relevant period. The reasoning accepted that the exemption notification was intended to preserve the same duty position for captively consumed goods as existed earlier, and that the Collector's objection based on the absence of a retrospective claim in the classification list could not defeat the statutory effect of the later validating legislation.
Conclusion: The exemption notification was held to operate retrospectively from 01.03.1986, and the demand was not sustainable.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the appellants were granted consequential relief.
Ratio Decidendi: Where retrospective exemption legislation validates and gives effect to an exemption notification for a specified period, the notification applies from the statutorily authorised date notwithstanding the absence of an earlier retrospective claim in the classification list.