9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the period 25.04.2007 to 31.01.2008, they had wrongly availed the benefit of Notification No.32/99-CE dated 08.07.1999 as amended by Notification No.21/2007 dated 25.04.2007. It was alleged that since the Applicant were carrying out only the process of re-packing of goods from bulk packs, hence not eligible to the benefit of the said Notification w.e.f 25.04.2007. It is the contention of the ld. Advocate for the Applicant that the amendment cannot be made applicable to the Units existing before the amendment i.e. 25.04.2007 and is applicable prospectively. In support of their contention that the amendment is not applicable to the units existing prior to 25.04.2007, the ld.Advocate referred to the judgement of Hon'ble Himachal Prades ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not applicable to the facts of the present case and is distinguishable. The Hon'ble High Court decided the issue against the Revenue observing that sufficient evidences were not laid down in establishing the fact that withdrawal of the exemption Notification would result a greater public interest than its continuation. It is his submission that no such situation did arise or exists in the present case. He has submitted that exemption is issued in the public interest by the Govt. of India and can be revoked at any time, if withdrawal of such exemption would serve a greater public interest. He further submits that the issue whether the activity result into manufacture or otherwise is irrelevant in the present context, inasmuch as under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tention of the Revenue that since the Applicant were undisputedly engaged in the process of re-packing of goods from bulk packs, therefore they are not eligible to the benefit of said Notification w.e.f. 25.04.2007. The argument of the Applicant on the other hand is that Notification No.32/99-CE dated 08.07.1999 was initially issued for a period of 10 years, and applicable to the Units situated in the area and therefore, any amendment to such Notification would only be applicable prospectively, that is, to the Units established after the issuance of the said Notification; it cannot be made inapplicable to the existing units. In support, they have referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Gillete ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
