TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 329
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... referred to as 'Impugned Order'), passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Madurai, whereby the Order-in-Original confirming the demand of duty along with interest and penalty, was upheld. 1.2 The Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Cashew Shell Liquid (CNSL) classifiable under Chapter Heading 1302 19 20 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 1.3 During scrutiny of ER-1 returns for the period April 2012 to February 2013, it was noticed that the Appellant had cleared CNSL without payment of duty, claiming SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003, as amended. 1.4 The Department took the view that CNSL falling under Chapter 13 was not eligible for SSI exemption after amendment of Notifica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly eligible for SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE. ii. It was contended that Notification No. 8/2006-CE, which substituted the Annexure, contained a drafting/printing error, which was later corrected by Corrigendum dated 28.02.2006, clarifying that goods falling under "Chapter 9 to 20" were eligible. iii. Since Chapter 13 falls within Chapter 9 to 20, CNSL continued to remain eligible for SSI exemption. iv. Reliance was placed on Shah Foods Ltd. v. CCE, Ahmedabad - 2012 (9) TMI 676 (CESTAT) to submit that corrigenda are legally binding and must be given effect to. v. It was argued that the Department incorrectly relied upon Notifications Nos. 1/2011-CE, 2/2011-CE, 16/2012-CE and 19/2012-CE, w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....03.2006 amended Notification No. 8/2003-CE by substituting the Annexure. Crucially, a Corrigendum dated 28.02.2006-issued prior to the effective date of Notification No. 8/2006-CE-corrected the substituted Annexure to expressly read: "All goods falling under Chapter 9 to 20 (except heading 0902)". The legal effect of this corrigendum cannot be ignored, as it forms an integral and inseparable part of the amending notification itself. 8.2 It is an admitted and undisputed position that Cashew Shell Liquid (CNSL) manufactured by the Appellant is classifiable under Chapter 13 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Chapter 13 squarely falls within the range of Chapters 9 to 20 as expressly mentioned in the corrected Annexure. Therefore, on a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itutes a valid and recognised aid to interpretation and conclusively negates any presumption of an implied exclusion of Chapter 13 goods. Read conjointly, the principal notification, the corrigendum, and the TRU clarification unmistakably establish that there was no conscious policy decision to deny SSI exemption to Cashew Shell Liquid, and the Department's reliance on an uncorrected or truncated version of the Annexure is therefore legally unsustainable. 8.5 We find considerable force in the Appellant's reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in Shah Foods Ltd. v. CCE, Ahmedabad [2012 (9) TMI 676 (CESTAT, Ahmedabad)]. In that case, the Tribunal was dealing with an identical controversy concerning the scope of SSI exemption under Notifi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s such intention is explicitly stated. In the absence of any express provision withdrawing SSI exemption for CNSL, the benefit available under Notification No. 8/2003-CE continues to operate independently. 8.7 Once it is held that the Appellant was legally entitled to SSI exemption during the relevant period, the very foundation of the demand collapses. Consequently, the demand of duty confirmed in the impugned order is unsustainable in law. It follows as a natural corollary that interest under Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944, being purely consequential and compensatory in nature, cannot survive when the principal demand itself fails. Similarly, the penalty imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is also liab....