1994 (6) TMI 95 - AT - Central Excise

Customs Tribunal: Benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. upheld, retrospective effect denied. Revenue appeal rejected.

The Tribunal held that the respondents were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. from 1-4-1986 to 23-4-1986 and that the amendment by ... Exemption under two alternative notifications available Issues Involved:1. Entitlement to exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. during 1-4-1986 to 23-4-1986.2. Applicability and retrospective effect of Notification No. 260/86 dated 24-4-1986 on Notification No. 138/86.3. Simultaneous availing of benefits under Notification No. 175/86 and Notification No. 138/86.Detailed Analysis:1. Entitlement to Exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. during 1-4-1986 to 23-4-1986:The core issue was whether the respondents were entitled to the benefit of exemption Notification No. 175/86-C.E. during the period from 1-4-1986 to 23-4-1986. The respondents cleared a quantity of 208.325 M.T. of goods without payment of duty by availing full exemption in terms of clause (a) of para 1 of Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-1986. The Department argued that since the respondents started availing the benefit of Notification No. 138/86 from 24-4-1986, they were not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. due to the Proviso (V) inserted in Notification No. 138/86 by Notification No. 260/86, dated 24-4-1986. The Tribunal, however, found that the respondents were entitled to avail of Notification No. 175/86 during the specified period, as there was no prohibition against availing multiple notifications simultaneously before the amendment on 24-4-1986.2. Applicability and Retrospective Effect of Notification No. 260/86 dated 24-4-1986 on Notification No. 138/86:The respondents argued that the amendment introduced by Notification No. 260/86, dated 24-4-1986, which inserted a clause in Notification No. 138/86, could not have retrospective effect. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the amendment could not retrospectively affect the entitlement under Notification No. 175/86 for the period before 24-4-1986. The Tribunal referenced cases supporting the principle that amendments enlarging the scope of a notification cannot be considered retrospective unless explicitly stated.3. Simultaneous Availing of Benefits under Notification No. 175/86 and Notification No. 138/86:The respondents contended that the exemptions under Notification No. 175/86 and Notification No. 138/86 were independent and could be availed simultaneously until 23-4-1986. The Tribunal supported this view, citing the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Balraj Paper & Straw Board Mills (P) Ltd., where it was held that an assessee could avail of benefits under both notifications if otherwise entitled. The Tribunal found no legal basis to force the respondents to choose one notification over the other before the amendment on 24-4-1986.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the respondents were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. during the period from 1-4-1986 to 23-4-1986, and the amendment introduced by Notification No. 260/86 could not have retrospective effect. The appeal by the Revenue was rejected, and the cross objections were disposed of accordingly.