TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 969
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the original authority. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the respondent is engaged in the manufacture of Tread Rubber, Cushion, Solution falling under Chapter 4006.10 and 4005.90 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The respondent filed a letter dated 13.08.2004 declaring that they are entitled to avail area based exemption under Notification No. 49/50/2003 dated 10.06.2003. In the said declaration, the respondent stated that they have made substantial expansion of plant and machinery and thereby increased the installed capacity by more than 25% which entitles them to the benefit of the said notification. In support of their claim, they have also submitted the required documents in the form....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. She submits that Khasra No. 147 was specified by issuing Notification No. 34/2005-CE dated 30.09.2005 and it has been specifically mentioned in the said notification that "This Notification shall come into force on the 1st day of October, 2005". She further submits that by no stretch of imagination, it can be presumed that it has retrospective effect. She also submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly relied upon the decision of Hon'ble High Court as the facts of filing of appeal against the order of the Assistant Commissioner were not before the Hon'ble High Court. She also submits that it is well settled position of law t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es that this notification shall come into force on the 1st day of October, 2005. He further submits that since Khasra Nos. have been substituted, therefore, in terms of legal interpretation of "substitution", they stand incorporated in the parent notification that too from 10.06.2003 itself. In support of his submissions, he relies upon the following decisions: (i) Madhu Sudan Mittal vs. UOI - (2023) 2 CENTEX 307 (Jhar.) (ii) Mehler Engineered Products India Pvt Ltd vs. UOI - 2018 (364) ELT 27 (Mad.) (iii) Commissioner of CE & ST, Bangalore vs. Fosroc Chemicals India Pvt Ltd - 2015 (318) ELT 240 (Kar.) 6. After considering the submissions made by both the sides and perusing the material on record and the variou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubstitution relates back to the original document, as has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Zile Singh v. State of Haryana and Government of India and others v. Indian Tobacco Association 2005 Taxmann.com 1015/ 2005 (187) ELT 162 (SC) [(2005) 7 SCC 396], both the amendments by way of substitution of the provision as contained in the original notification will be deemed to have applicable with effect from the date of notification dated 20.06.2012." Similarly, the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Mehler Engineered Products India Pvt Ltd (supra) has held as under : "9.5 In the case of Government of India v. Indian Tobacco Association reported in 2005 (187) E.L.T. 162 (S.C.) while dealing with the exemption notification whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h have to follow would naturally be applicable to the assessee by such substitution. Thus, notification dated 22-2-2016 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." Further the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of CE & ST, Bangalore vs. Fosroc Chemicals India Pvt Ltd (supra) has observed in para 13 as under : "13. ............ As the said amendment is clarificatory in nature, that is the reason why it was brought by way of "substitution". The effect of the sai....