2004 (6) TMI 90

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... terms of the Notification No. 22/94, benefit of exemption could not be utilised and therefore he allowed the Revenue appeal by setting aside the Assistant Commissioner's order. The Order-in-Original No. 3/96, dated 9-2-1996 considered the applicability of Tribunal judgments rendered in the case of CCE v. Balraj Paper and Straw Board Mills (P) Ltd. [1990 (47) E.L.T. 139] and that of CCE v. Pashwara Paper (P) Ltd. [1994 (73) E.L.T. 297]. It had been held in both the cases that when two exemption notifications are simultaneously available the Department cannot insist the assessee to choose one of the notifications and the assessee is at liberty to choose any one of the notifications which is beneficial to him. The Assistant Commissioner noted....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ication No. 22/94-C.E., dated 1-3-1994 and Notification No. 22/95-C.E., dated 16-3-1995. The new restrictive condition had been introduced by the legislature. He submitted that since the said amendment is substantial in nature therefore its operation is prospective and cannot affect the manufacturers already availing the benefits under Notification No. 22/94 during the financial year 1994-95 till 31-3-1995. He relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Collector v. K. Mohan & Co. [1997 (94) E.L.T. 202 (T)] wherein it has been observed by the Tribunal that if the amending notification is introducing a wholly new condition, then it would be only prospective in operation. He also submitted that the terms of the Notification No. 22/95 itsel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aper (P) Ltd. [1994 (73) E.L.T. 297]. The Assistant Commissioner has clearly noted both the citations and noted that the facts of the case clearly fall within the ratio of the judgments. The provisions of Section 22/95 has come into effect only from 1-3-1995 while the appellants had enjoyed the benefit of Notification No. 22/94 from 1-4-1994 to 15-3-1995. They had paid duty in terms of Notification No. 22/94 and therefore there was no bar in their enjoying two exemptions in terms of the notifications as held by the Tribunal in the cited case. We have considered the pleas and note that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not examined the issue correctly in the light of the Tribunal judgments. The Notification No. 22/95, dated 1-3-1995 which has b....