9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 717X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Respondent ORDER Per Bench The facts of the case are that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of machined automobile parts both under job work basis as well as on their own account. They were functioning under Notification No. 9/2003-CE date 01.03.2003 by which interalia first clearance upto Rs. One Crore were leviable to 16% normal rate of duty. However, para-2 (iv) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation by the original authority and also upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order No. 57/2005-CE dated 08.03.2005. Hence this appeal. 2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the appellant, Ld. Advocate, Shri Subash Chander submits that the very same issue has been dealt by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of WPIL Ltd. Vs. CCE, Meerut, U.P. - 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... later notification reinstated the omission which did not grant the exemption for the first time, it is to be treated as clarificatory and retrospective. 5. Respectfully following the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we hold that the amendment caused in Notification No. 9/2003-CE by way of Notification No. 67/2003-CE will have to be treated as retrospective and clarificatory am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
