TMI Blog1998 (3) TMI 628X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by M/s. Century Rayon and the matter relates to the period when the old Central Excise Tariff was in force and also for the subsequent period when new Central Excise Tariff had come into force. 2. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had held that the assessee was eligible for the benefit of Notfn. No. 281/86, dated 24-4-86 which related to the exemption to goods manufactured and used in a factory for repairs and maintenance of machinery. He however, denied the benefit of Notfn. No. 118/75-C.E. which related to the exemption in favour of the goods for captive consumption. 3. We have heard Shri Satnam Singh, SDR who is present for the Revenue and Shri K.M. Puranik, Consultant for the assessee. Shri Puranik filed; written submissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich exempts all excisable goods manufactured in a workshop within a factory and intended for use in the said factory or in any other factory of the same manufacturer for repairs or maintenance of machinery installed therein from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon. The notification does not make any reference to the fact whether the workshop should be small or big or the excisable goods manufactured should be primarily intended for manufacture by the factory as their prime production and that, as held by the Collector (Appeals), the goods were not manufactured in a workshop within the factory but were manufactured in a factory where the prime products of the appellants were manufactured. The notification makes no reference to s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch a restricted application. Especially in view of the fact that earlier, prior to the introduction of the new tariff, such exemption was in existence in terms of Notification No. 118/75, dated 30-4-1975, which, however, did not make any mention of workshop. In 1983 (12) E.L.T. 209 (Kar.) - M/s. India Sugars Refineries Ltd. v. Union of India and Others, interpretation of a notification has been discussed :- If an expression in Notification is used in plain and meaningful language there is no scope for assuming an ambiguity and trying to interpret it on a supposed intention of the makers of the notification . Further in 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1017 (CEGAT) - Hercules Tyre Rubber Industries v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh, it ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... extracted below : 2. Retrospective effect for certain notifications. - (1) Every notification issued by the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) on or after the 3rd day of March, 1986, but before the 8th day of August, 1986, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which is for the purpose of, or has the object of, - (a) maintaining the effective rates of duties of excise in respect of certain goods at the level obtaining prior to the 28th day of February, 1986 notwithstanding the changes in the rates of duties made by the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986), the Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Amendment Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
