2008 (6) TMI 218

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....acture of tread rubber. Besides producing and clearing excisable goods on their own account, these companies are engaged in manufacturing and processing of goods for other parties including tyre companies on job work basis. Notification No. 9/2003-C.E. issued on 1-3-2003 provides concessional rate of duty at 60% of normal rate of duty for first clearances up to rupees one crore and exemption from payment of duty for clearances of specified goods under certain conditions. The benefit of concession and exemption under Clause 2(vi) of this notification is available only if the aggregate value of clearances of all excisable goods for home consumption by a manufacturer from one or more factories, or from a factory by one or more manufacturers, d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....th April, 1994], or No. 84/94-Central Excise, dated the 11th April, 1994 [G.S.R. 376(E), dated the 11th April, 1994]." Notification No. 214/86 referred to in the clause above provides for exemption of duty on goods cleared on job work basis. Consequent upon this amendment to Notification No. 9/03, the aggregate value of clearances in the preceding year for the purpose of exemption/concession will be reckoned after excluding the value of goods cleared on job work basis. By excluding the turnover of value of clearances on job work of both the respondents for the previous financial year, both the respondents are eligible for concession/exemption under Notification No. 9/03. However, since the benefit accrued to respondents by Annexure-B Notif....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... onwards. He has also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner reported in 1991 (55) E.L.T. 437, whereunder the Supreme Court has held that notification granting exemption should be given wide and liberal construction. We are unable to agree with the finding of the Tribunal that prospectivity of notification has no relevance. In fact, the scope of a notification has to be considered with reference to the statutory provisions under which it is issued. It is the admitted position that without Annexure-B Notification, the respondents would not have been benefited by Annexure-A Notification providing for concession/exemption of duty. We find that Annexure-A Notification, No. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nnexure-A Notification with effect from the date on which it was amended vide Annexure-B Notification. In other words, concession/exemption on clearances will be available to respondents only by virtue of Annexure-B Notification with effect from the date on which that notification came into force i.e. 11-8-2003. We do not know on what basis, the Tribunal has held that prospectivity has no relevance in this case. The Tribunal, instead of considering the scope of notifications with reference to the statutory provisions, under which those are issued, considered the scope of the statutory provisions with reference to the notifications issued. The Tribunal ought to have taken into account the powers of the Government, even to rescind Annexure-B ....