TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 133
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in machinery from another 100 % EOU M/s. Eutrabell India, Sivakasi, vide invoice dated 21.12.2012. The petitioner relied upon explanation II to Notification No.23/2003-CE, which treated goods supplied by one EOU to another EOU as imported goods. The appellant availed the benefit of Notification No.52/2003 dated 31.03.2003, by which, the Central Government in exercise of its powers under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 [the Act for brevity] granted certain exemptions, subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. 3.2. The officials of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Madurai Sub Regional Unit conducted verification in the business premises of the appellant and as a result of which, show cause notice dated 29.01.2018, was issued to the appellant, stating that the appellant has failed to fulfill the conditions regarding installation of the machinery in terms of Notification No.52/2003 and therefore, the exemption availed under Notification No.52/2003 was proposed to be denied; the machineries proposed to be confiscated; a sum of Rs. 15,78,485/- to be demanded as duty, apart from proposing to impose penalty. The appellant submitted their reply after which, the impugned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are not proved to the satisfaction of the said officer to have been used in connection with the production or packaging of goods for export out of India or cleared for home consumption within the period of validity of the Letter of Permission (LoP);" 3.5. Thus, in terms of the amended notification in the case of the capital goods proved to the satisfaction of the officer to have been installed or otherwise used in the unit within the validity of Letter of Permission, the benefit of Notification No.52/2003 would inure in favour of the importer. The question raised by the appellant in their reply to the show cause notice was that the amended Notification No.34/2015, being a notification in substitution of the relevant clause in Notification No. 52/2003 is deemed to be retrospective. 3.6. The learned Single Bench though accepted that under normal circumstances, a notification or a statute which is being substituted is deemed to be retrospective, declined the relief to the appellant on the ground that the liability which had crystallized in the impugned order is an accrued liability, the correctness of which is to be decided in this appeal. 4. We have elaborately heard Mr. A.K. Jay....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s been imposed. Only an obvious mistake was sought to be removed thereby. 17. There cannot furthermore be any doubt whatsoever that when a person is held to be eligible to obtain the benefits of an exemption notification, the same should be liberally consumed." 10. The legal principles deducible from the above decisions is that if subsequent Act amends an earlier one in such a way as it incorporate itself or a part of itself into the earlier, the Act must be construed as 'retrospective'. This is so, because, the word "substituted" would mean 'to put one in the place of another' or 'to replace'. Thus, on account of such substitution whatever consequences which have to follow would naturally be applicable to the assessee by such substitution. Thus, notification dated 22.02.2016 in Notification No.51 of 2016 - Cus.(ADD) having substituted Entry 5402 47 in the notification dated 21-10-2015 bearing Notification No.51 of 2015, it would mean that the Entry in the Notification dated 21-10-2015 shall be 5402 47 for all purpose and it shall be so with effect from 21-10-2015." 6. In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai II Commissionerate Vs. S.P. Fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....live the old rule. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances centring around the issue the Court held that the substitution had the effect of just deleting the old rule and making the new rule operative. In Mangilal Pindwal case, this Court upheld the legislative practice of an amendment by substitution being incorporated in the text of a statute which had ceased to exist and held that the substitution would have the effect of amending the operation of law during the period in which it was in force. In Koteswar case, a three-Judge Bench of this Court emphasised the distinction between 'supersession' of a rule and 'substitution' of a rule and held that the process of substitution consists of two steps: first, the old rule is made to cease to exist and, next, the new rule his brought into existence in its place." 7. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai - IV Vs. M/s. Kone Elevators India Pvt. Ltd., [2019-TIOL-1542-HC-MAD-CX] had taken note of the decision in the case of S.P. Fabricators Ltd., and dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. 8. This being the legal position, we need to see as to whe....