2007 (4) TMI 502

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed 16-3-95, as long as the final product cement was chargeable to duty. However, during the period involved in present appeal, cement was cleared at Nil rate of duty in terms of provisions of Notification No. 2/2001, dated 27-1-01 and Notification No. 16/01 dated 26-3-01. In as much as the final product became exempted, the exemption in terms of Notification No. 67/95, was no longer available to the cement clinker. Accordingly, the authorities below raised the demand of duty Rs. 17,97,495/- against the appellant and also imposed personal penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs. The said order passed by the original adjudicating authority was confirmed by Commissioner (Appeals) with reduction of penalty from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 50,000/-. 2. It is seen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rade zone or a 100% export oriented undertaking or to a unit in an electronic hardware technology park, or to a unit in software technology park, or supplied to United Nations, or to an international organization for their official use or supplied to a project funded by United Nations or an international organization, the benefit would still be available to the captively consumed input even if no duty was paid on the final product. Admittedly, during the relevant period i.e. May 01, the appellant was not covered by any of the exceptions contained in the proviso to the notification. However, w.e.f. 1-6-01, vide Notification No. 31/01, another exclusion was created in the proviso by adding Sr. No. (vi). As per the appellant, they are exempted....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....efit and all along had been granted duty exemption and the object of Govt, was to grant the same benefit to substituted port as given to listed ports. It was in view of the peculiar background fact of that particular case that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that notification has to be held as retrospective. As contrast to the same, there is nothing in the appeal to show that carving additional exclusion to the proviso, was in the nature of a clarification and in any case was exempted by earlier exclusion, in the said proviso. Definitely and admittedly, the said exclusion clause is a new addition to the list of exclusions provided in the proviso to the notification and cannot be held to be retrospective. For our above view, we refer to Tribu....