TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 410
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n parts when used within the factory of production for further manufacture of footwear on the condition that this finished footwear are either fully exempted, or if dutiable, the value of this footwear does not exceed Rs. 30/- per pair. Notification No.89/87-CEdated 01.03.1987 was issued omitting Sl.No.2 and the entries relating thereto the benefit of exemption from payment of central excise duty. Subsequently Notification No.119/87-CE dated 24.04.1987 was issued granting benefit of exemption from payment of central excise duty on parts of footwear used captively in the factory of production itself in the manufacture of footwear. The series of Notification issued regarding exemption from payment of Central Excise duty on parts of footwear used in the factory of manufacture makes it clear that no benefit of exemption was available to the assessee for manufacture of parts of footwear for the period 01.03.1987 to 23.04.1987. Show cause notice dated 25.09.1991 was issued demanding central excise duty for the aforesaid period in terms of rule 9(2). The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 7,51,313.70 and also imposed penalty of equal amount. On appeal the Commissioner(Appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... aforesaid footwear in fully manufactured condition which were lying in stock and not the parts thereof any more. The ld.Sr.Counsel also submitted that the show cause notice was barred by limitation. Further there was no fraud or collusion or any misstatement or suppression of any fact, willful contravention of any of the provisions of the statute with intent to evade payment of duty and accordingly no penalty ought to have been imposed on the appellants. He prayed for setting aside the same. The ld.Counsel also referred to the following decisions:- (a) WPIL Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut, U.P.- [2005 (181) ELT 359 (SC)] (b) Ralson (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Chandigarh-I- [2015 (319) ELT 234 (SC)] 5. Ld. Supdt. (AR) reiterates the discussions and findings of the lower authorities. 6. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 7. For the proper appreciation of the case, the relevant portions of the various notifications are reproduced below:- "(a) Notification No. 49/86-CE dated 10.02.1986. 2. 6401.91 Parts of footwear Provided that such parts are used in the factory of production itself in the manufacture of footwear falling....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... NO. 89/89-CE (Supra), the appellant is not entitled to avail the Exemption benefit. On the other hand, the Ld. Sr.Counsel submitted that after taking into account the continuation of the Notification since 1967, the Notification No. 119/87-CE dated24.04.1987, should be treated as clarificatory in nature and effective retrospectively. After going through the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as referred to by the Ld. Sr. Counsel, We find force in the submission of the Ld. Sr. Counsel. It is noticed that in similar situation in respect of other Notification the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the subsequent Notifications would be treated as clarificatory Notifications and not a new Notification granting benefit for the 1st time. In the present case, after considering the legislative history of the exemption Notifications on parts of footwear since 1967, which was continued except for the disputed period of four days. The Notification No. 119/87-CE (Supra), would be treated as clarificatory in nature in the fine of Government Policy as the legislature had given the exemption to the final product on footwear even during the disputed period. 8. The observation of the Hon'ble Sup....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 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-C.E. 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. 9. The assessee in the aforesaid case took the same plea by arguing that since the decision of the exemption vide Notification dated1-3-94 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 aforesaid judgment holding that even during the period from 1-3-94 to 24-4-94, the manufacturers of part of power driven pumps shall continue to get the exemption. The relevant part of the said judgment which squarely applies to the present case as well is reproduced below in Paras 16-17 : "16. In view of the consistent policy of the Government of exempting parts of power driven pumps utilized by the factory within the factory premises, it could not be said that while issuing Notification No. ....