2003 (2) TMI 257

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the appellants only on 13-3-2002. He pleads that the appeal has been filed within time on 14th May, 2002. Shri M.K. Gupta, learned Jt. C.D.R. raises preliminary objection that the appeal should be dismissed on the ground of time bar. However, he is not able to produce any postal record or any other proof of delivery of the order-in-appeal to the appellants before 13-3-2002. 2. The leaned Advocate states that Notification No. 176/86-C.E., dated 1-3-86 was amended by Notification No. 56/92-C.E., dated 31-3-92 debarring unregistered small-scale units from availing exemption under Notification No. 175/86. However, a further amendment by Notification No. 67/92-C.E., dated 22-5-92 allowed the exemption for unregistered units till 31-3-93....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....act that the Jt. C.D.R. has not been able to produce any proof of delivery of order-in-appeal to the appellants before 13-3-2002, we reject the contention that the appeal is time barred. In view of the Larger Bench decision in the case of CCE, Mumbai v. Automats (India) - 2000 (119) E.L.T. 34, we also dispense with the pre-deposit and proceed to decide the case on merit. It is a clear case where an amendment was made to Notification No. 175/86 by amending Notification No. 55/92, dated 31-3-92 making the appellants ineligible for small-scale exemption with effect from 1-4-92 as they had no SSI registration. The situation changed with effect from 21-5-92 with further amendment made to Notification No. 175/86 by amending Notification No. 67/92....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tification No. 67/92 issued on 22-5-92 has the effect of undoing the earlier changes made by Notification No. 55/92, dated 31-3-92. In this regard we observe the following :- 1.       Notification No. 67/92, dated 22-5-92 contains no provision expressly stating that it will have retrospective effect from 31-3-92. 2.       When this notification published in the Official Gazette has not indicated that it will have retrospective effect, mere departmental letter from TRU, a branch of the Ministry addressed to the Collectors of Central Excise cannot give the said notification retrospective effect. 3.       In fact, the Ministry issuing exemption n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e, such clarification has to be employed as an aid for construing the rule, especially when such clarification reveals the very object of the rule. The Ministry's letter made it clear that, by virtue of Notification 67/92-C.E., dated 21-5-92, the restriction imposed by Notification 55/92-C.E., dated 31-3-92 came into effect only from 1-4-93. This meant that the operation of the second proviso stood suspended during 1-4-92 - 31-3-1993. In the result, the said proviso did not affect anybody's right during 1992-93. An interpretation by ignoring the rule-making authority's clarification of the purpose of Notification 67/92-C.E. might lead to an anomalous and unintended situation in which an SSI unit could be held to be ineligible for exemption ....