TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 74
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....03 passed by the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (CESTAT). By the said order the three appeals preferred by the appellants herein were taken up for consideration. Those appeals were filed against the Orders in Original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh, imposing the tax liability of Rs. 46 ,97,428 /- Rs. 46,77,469 /- and Rs. 54,21,524 /- respectively against the three appellants herein. The Tribunal vide the impugned judgment has sustained the aforesaid duty demand. To recapitulate the facts in brief - the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of tyre and tube of rubber for bicycles and cycle rikshaws . The dispute pertains to the manufacture of 'compounded rubber' which comes un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....consumption during the aforesaid period. This led the Department to issue show cause notices against the appellant and passing of the orders for payment of duty, as indicated earlier. The record reveals that in reply to show cause notice the appellants had taken two defences . First defence was that the Notification No.64 /94 CE dated 1.3.94 by which the exemption was withdrawn was erroneously issued insofar as compounded rubber is concerned, and after realizing this mistake, the remedial step was taken by the Government by restoring the exemption vide Notification dated 28.3.1994. On that basis it was argued that the Notification No.74 /94-CE dated 28.3.1994 was merely clarificatory in nature and should be applied retrospectively. In nuts....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....qua 389 earlier notifications was rescinded, the Notification in respect of the part of power driven pumps was also included as rescinded. Thereafter, the same item was again exempted by Notification No.95 /94-CE issued on April 25, 1994 . In this manner, insofar as parts of power driven pumps are concerned, there was no exemption in respect thereof for the period from 1.3.94 to 24.4.1994. The assessee in the aforesaid case took the same plea by arguing that since the decision of the exemption vide Notification dated 1.3.94 was an inadvertent error and the Government realizing this mistake had reintroduced the exemption it will be treated as only corrective and clarificatory in nature. This contention was accepted by this Court in the afor....