TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (11) TMI 171
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sub-heading 1504.00 of the CETA, 1985 and availing the benefit of concessional rate of duty of Rs. 1900/- PMT in terms of Notification 12/89-C.E., dated 1-3-1989 for goods specified against Sl. No. 2 of the Table annexed to the Notification. Since the Department was of the view that the concessional rate of duty under the above mentioned Notification was applicable to certain products of inedible grade, while the product manufactured by the respondents was admittedly of edible grade, a show cause notice demanding differential duty of Rs. 43,83,671.40 on goods cleared during the period September, 1989 to February, 1990 was issued and the Assistant Collector confirmed the duty demand. The lower appellate authority, however, set aside the orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... have read as "goods (other than hardened technical oil inedible grade)". In this view of the matter, we hold that the vanaspati ghee of edible grade which was later made eligible to concessional rate of duty by issue of Notification 13/90-C.E., dated 20-3-1990, was not covered by Sl. No. 2 of the Notification 12/89, dated 1-3-1989 and that, therefore, duty was rightly leviable on this product for the period in dispute. 6. As regards time bar, though a plea was initially raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the demand was partly time barred as the show cause notice was issued on 4-4-1990 for the period from September, 1989 to February, 1990, he subsequently gave up the claim when it was pointed out to him that sinc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng that they form part of the general nomenclature such goods of inedible variety alone should be deemed to be covered by this notification as exemption notification are required to be interpreted strictly. In the present case since product namely vanaspati ghee was of edible grade it was not covered by this notification as it stood during the relevant period. Moreover the demand was not time barred as it was issued within six months of the date of receipt of RT 12. The ld. Counsel on the other hand drew attention to the order-in-appeal and the arguments of the respondents as pleaded before the A.C. and the Collector. The ld. Counsel further submitted that the benefit of concessional rate of duty is available to them inasmuch as the descrip....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of edible grade. 10. It was also his submission that the position was subsequently clarified by the Government by amending this notification by way of Notification No. 13/90, dated 20-3-1990 in which the words goods other than those specified at Sl. No. 1 have been incorporated at Sl. No. 2. The ld. Collector is therefore right in holding that this is a clarificatory notification which has a retrospective effect. 11. He however agrees that show cause notice having been issued within six months of RT 12 was not time barred. 12. I have considered the above submission. I observe that the Heading 15.04 as it stood during the relevant period reads as follows :- Vegetable fats and oils and their fractions, partly or w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an goods classifiable under 15.04 other than hardened technical oil. Prima facie both interpretation appear plausible therefore the respondent's argument and the Collector's verdict that the subsequent Notification No. 13/89 (sic) by which the aforesaid entry was amended to read `goods other than those falling under entry at Sl. No. 1' was clarificatory could not be lightly brushed aside. At the same time we felt that if the intention was to qualify all goods, irrespective of edible or inedible variety, except hardened technical oil, it would have been sufficient to mention goods other than hardened technical oil because normally technical oils are of inedible grade. 16. An interesting question also arose in this context whether for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee was required to be adopted. But of late in a series of judgments the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken the view that a strict interpretation of notification was warranted and in the case of Liberty Oil Mills - 1997 (75) E.L.T. 13 (S.C.) it has been held that "in the case of an ambiguity or doubt regarding an exemption provision in a fiscal statute, ambiguity or doubt would be resolved in favour of the revenue and not in favour of the assessee and in this respect a reference has been made to the case of Novopan India Ltd. - 1994 (73) E.L.T. 769 (S.C.). In the present case the language of the Entry No. 2 does create an ambiguity and doubt and there are two plausible interpretations. Therefore it was necessary to resolve the issue ....