1995 (1) TMI 179 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
- Appeal against the order denying exemption under Notification No. 45/83-C.E., dated 1-3-1983.
- Interpretation of Notification No. 45/83-C.E., dated 1-3-1983 in relation to subsequent notifications.
- Application of Section 8 of the General Clauses Act to notifications issued in supersession.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed by the Collector, Central Excise, Chandigarh challenging the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) New Delhi regarding the denial of exemption under Notification No. 45/83-C.E., dated 1-3-1983 to the respondents, who were manufacturers of paper and paper board. The issue revolved around the respondents claiming exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986, and Notification No. 45/83-C.E., dated 1-3-1983 for Mill Board manufactured by them.

2. The Revenue argued that the respondents were not eligible for exemption under both Notification No. 45/83, dated 17-3-1985, and Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-1986, as the latter superseded the former. The Revenue relied on a judgment of the Bombay High Court to support their contention.

3. On behalf of the respondents, it was argued that the exemption notifications for small scale units had been amended multiple times, and the absence of an amendment to para 2 of Notification No. 45/83, dated 1-3-1983 when Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-1986 was issued indicated the government's intention not to deny exemption to manufacturers availing S.S.I. benefits.

4. The Tribunal examined the case records and arguments presented. The central issue was whether the exemption under Notification No. 45/83, dated 1-3-1983 could be denied to a unit availing S.S.I. exemption under Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-1986, without a specific amendment in para 2 of Notification No. 45/83, dated 1-3-1983.

5. Reference was made to para 2 of Notification No. 45/83-C.E., dated 1-3-1983, which stated that the exemption would not apply to manufacturers availing exemptions under specific notifications. The Revenue argued that Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 should be deemed as a reference instead of Notification No. 85/85-C.E., dated 17-3-1985, based on the General Clauses Act and a judgment of the Bombay High Court.

6. The Tribunal disagreed with the Revenue's interpretation, stating that Section 8 of the General Clauses Act did not apply to situations where a notification was issued in supersession of an earlier one. The Tribunal referred to a previous case to emphasize that rules or subordinate legislation do not hold the same status as statutes.

7. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the findings of the Collector (Appeals) that after 1-3-1986, in the absence of a provision in Notification No. 45/83-C.E., dated 1-3-1983, denying exemption to manufacturers availing S.S.I. benefits under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986, the respondents were eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 45/83-C.E., dated 1-3-1983.

8. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Collector was rejected, affirming the eligibility of the respondents for the exemption under Notification No. 45/83-C.E., dated 1-3-1983 despite availing benefits under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986.

← Previous Next →