TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 508X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpt from duty subject to observance of AR 3A and Bond Procedure as laid down under Notification No. 123/81, dated 2-6-1981. The issue involved in the present appeal is as to whether the Notification No. 123/81, dated 2-6-1981 which grants exemption to components, would also get extended to spares received by the appellants. 2. The appellants were issued a show cause notice dated 6-3-1987 alleging that the exemption Notification in question was not available to spares. As such, demand of duty of Rs. 46,124.62 for the period from 7-12-1983 to 18-6-1985 was raised against them, which no stands confirmed by the Orders of the authorities below. 3. We have heard Shri P.R. Biswas, learned Consultant for the appellants and Shri R.K. Roy, learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed upon by the authorities below, the matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority. Arguments have again been advanced before us that the bond executed does not amount to provisional assessments. We do not appreciate the above arguments inasmuch as the question of life of the bond already settled by the earlier Order of the Tribunal. 6. As regards the issue on merits, we find that Notification No. 123/81 exempts capital goods, components and raw materials subject to the conditions enumerated therein. Whether spares would be included by the expression, components , or not, is the disputed issue. The appellants contention is that the two expressions are synonymous as both are parts. A component is a part when it is in actu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spares are two separate identifiable expressions, it cannot be said that the subsequent Notification introducing spares in the Notification, was only a clarificatory Notification. It is also a known principle of interpretation of statute that unless a retrospective operation is given to a statutory amendment, it takes effect from the date of introduction thereof. In the amending clause, there is no deeming provisions that what was being seen by way of exemption was by any process of intendment, to be taken as having been always impliedly there. So, it cannot be said that the period prior to the amendment ought to be covered by the amendment brought about subsequently. As such, in view of the foregoing, we do not find my merits in the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
