TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (10) TMI 328
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tton Yarns under Tariff Item 18-A (1) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff as it stood before 1-3-1986. Dispute is regarding the availability of Notification No. 275/82, dated 13-11-1982 during the period from 22-11-1983 to 28-2-1984. 1.2 In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present case, we reproduce below the Notification No. 275/82, dated 13-11-1982 :- Cellulose spun yarn & Cotton Yarn TI/18, 275/82-C.E., dated 13-11-1982 Concessional rates of duties on various counts of cellulosic spun yarn and cotton yarn not containing or containing not more than one-sixth of non-cellulosic fibre yarn (Straight reel) Hanks is exempted. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rule....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eding 25 but not exceeding 35; 10 paise plus 4 paise per count exceeding 25; (d) of counts exceeding 35 paise but not exceeding 45; 50 paise plus 3 paise per count exceeding 35 (e) of counts exceeding 45 but not exceeding 55. 130 paise plus 14 paise per count exceeding 45; (f) of counts exceeding 55 272.5 paise plus 5.5 paise per count exceeding 55. 3. Cellulosic spun yarn and cotton yarn (other than those referred to in Serial Nos. 1 and 2, - (a) of counts not exceeding 25; 1.5 paise per count; (b) of counts exceeding 25 but not exceeding 35; 40 paise plus 4 paise per count exceeding 25; (c) of counts exceeding 35 b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arn on which duty has already been paid at a rate specified against Sl. No. 3 in column (3) of the said Table even if such yarn is subsequently subject to beaming, warping, wrapping, winding or reeling or any one or more of these processes with or without the aid of power; (v)  if any single yarn or multiple fold yarn in plain (straight) reel is subsequently subjected to processes like bleaching, dyeing or mercerising by an independent processor with or without the aid of power, no further duty under the said Act shall be leviable; (vi)  the duty on sized yarn shall be charged on the basis of its weight before sizing. 1.3 The benefit of the said Notification has been denied to the appellants herein, since the proviso (i) t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Notification No. 131/77-C.E. provided the same concessional rates of duty as are provided in Notification No. 275/82. Since the appellants were not selling the goods to the registered handloom co-operative society etc., they were not entitled to the concessional rates of duty as laid down under Sl. No. 2 of the Table to the said Notification. Nevertheless, they were entitled to the concessional rates of duty under Serial No. 1 of the said Notification. He submits that Notification No. 131/77 was superseded by the Notification in question i.e. 275/82. Then this controversy has arisen. Again, he submits that the Notification No. 275/82 has been amended bringing the proviso (i) to the said Notification along with the description of the goods i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion No. 170/89 should be treated as clarificatory in nature having retrospective effect vis-a-vis the Notification No. 202/88, dated 20-5-1988. He, therefore, prays for allowing the appeal and giving the benefit of Serial No. 3 of the Table to the Notification No. 275/82. 4. Opposing the contention, learned JDR, Shri S.N. Ghosh for the respondent Commissioner submits that Notification should be read in plain and simple manner and it should be interpreted on its plain reading. Question in regard to construction would arise only if there is any ambiguity in the notification. He submits that reading plainly the Notification No. 275/82 divides the Cellulosic Spun Yarns and Cotton Yarns in three different categories which are as follows :....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No. 2. It is well-settled that any amendment in notification must be given effect from the date of the notification. It cannot be considered to be clarificatory inasmuch as there should be some words to that effect in order that such intention can be covered by a clear implication. 6. Next submission of the learned JDR, is that even if it is assumed that there was some ambiguity in Notification No. 275/82 as is sought to be made by the appellants, it is now well-settled by the Honourable Supreme Court in the cases of Novopan India Ltd. v. Collector reported in 1994 (73) E.L.T. 769 and Liberty Oil Mills (P) Ltd. v. Collector reported in 1995 (75) E.L.T. 13, that in case of any ambiguity in the exemption notification, benefit should be ....