2019 (7) TMI 953

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ngaged in the manufacture of other Furniture and Parts falling under Chapter 94 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. As the Appellant was clearing their final product to Mega Power Project under the claim of exemption in terms of Notification Number 6/2006-CE dated 01/03/2006, there was no requirement of payment of 6% of the duty in respect of said goods in terms of the provisions of Rule 6(3) as Rule 6(6)(vii) provided an exception to the said rule. There is no dispute about the said fact. 2. The said Notification No. 6/2006-CE was rescinded on 17/03/2012 and was replaced with Notification No. 12/2012 dated 17/03/2012. The new Notification No. 12/2012 also exempted the goods supplied to Mega Power Project. The appellant continued to avail ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pect. 5. Admittedly, the Notification No. 6/2006 continued to cause appearance in Sub-Rule 6(6)(vii) even though the same was not  in force during the relevant period and it seems that the said mistake was realized by the legislature only on 08/05/2012 and vide Notification No. 25/2012, the subsequent exemption Notification No. 12/2012 was introduced in the said rule. 6. When the said position was brought to the notice of the Central Board of Excise and Customs, Ministry of Finance, the same was clarified by them vide their letter F. No. 267/49/2013-CX.8 dated 30th June, 2015. For better appreciation, the relevant paragraph of the said letter is being reproduced below:- 2.  The said letter stated that continuance of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....held as effective retrospectively. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that the reintroduction of the Notification merely clarifies intention and makes explicit what was implicit. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ralson (India) Ltd. V/s Commissioner of C.EX. Chandigargh-I reported in 2015 (319) ELT 234 (SC) again reiterated the same position that in view of the consistent policy of the Government of India granting exemption to compounded rubber, withdrawal of the exemption by notification was inadvertent error, which was made good by introducing the exemption subsequently. The same has to be treated as corrective action on the part of the Government. 8. In the present case we find that it is not even a case of r....