TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 410X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Government of exempting parts of power driven pumps utilized by the factory within the factory promises, it could not be said that while issuing Notification No. 46/94 of March 1, 1994, the exemption in respect of said item which was operative was either withdrawn or revoked. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/364/07 - FO/A/76174/2018 - Dated:- 16-3-2018 - SHRI P.K. CHOUDHARY, MEMBER(JUDICIAL) And SHRI C.J. MATHEW, MEMBER(TECHNICAL) Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr.Advocate Shri Sanjay Bhowmik, Advocate for the Appellant (s) Shri A.K. Biswas, Supdt.(AR) for the Respondent (s) ORDER Per Shri P.K. Choudhary. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of footwear and parts of footwear classifiable under chapter 64 of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The dispute relates to demand of duty of ₹ 7,51,313.70 alongwith interest penalty on parts of footwear during the period from 01.03.1987 to 23.04.1987. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant consumes the parts of footwear in the manufacture. They were availing benefit of exemption from payment of the whole of the duty of excise leviabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xempted foot wear was increased to ₹ 30/- to ₹ 45/- per pair. However, similar increase in the ceiling limit was not made in Sl.No.2 of the said Notification No.49/86-CE which granted exemption in respect of the parts of footwear used in the factory of production in the manufacture of footwear, the value where of did not exceed ₹ 30/- per pair. When this discrepancy was noticed, Notification No.89/87-CE dated01.03.1987 was issued and it deleted Sl.No.2 from the earlier Notification No.49/86-CE (supra). The ceiling limit in respect of exempted footwear was also increased to ₹ 45/- to ₹ 60/- per pair. However, the ambiguity continued to prevail and again Notification No.119/87-CE dated 24.04.1987 was issued whereby a new Sl.No.7was inserted. In the table annexed to the Notification No.49/86-CE(supra). This Notification granted full exemption in respect of parts of footwear, provided such parts were used in the factory of production in the manufacture of footwear falling under chapter heading 6401.11. The ld.Sr.Counsel further submits that on 28.02.1986 the closing balance of exempted footwear lying at the appellant s factory was 8551pairs of leather foot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of footwear (b) Explanation II shall be omitted. (c) Notification No. 89/87 CE dated 01.03.1987. 4. 49/86-Central Excise Dated the 10 th February, 1986. In the Table annexed to the said notification;- (i) Sl. No. 2 and the entries relating Thereto, shall be omitted, and (ii) In Sl. No. 3, in column (4), for the abbreviation and figures Rs.45.00 , the abbreviation and figures Rs.60.00 shall be substituted. (d) Notification No. 119/87-CE., dated 24.04.1987.- Footwear and Parts thereof [Ch. 64]. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby makes the following further amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 49/86-Central Excise, dated the 10th February, 1986, namely:- In the Table annexed to the said notification, after Sl. No. 6 and the entries relating thereto, the following Sl. No. and entries shall be substituted, namely. (1) (2) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h a notification merely clarifies the position and makes explicit what was implicit. Clarificatory notifications have been issued to end the dispute between the parties. 16. In view of the consistent policy of the Government of exempting parts of power driven pumps utilized by the factory within the factory promises, it could not be said that while issuing Notification No. 46/94of March 1, 1994, the exemption in respect of said item which was operative was either withdrawn or revoked. The action was taken only with a view to rescinding several notifications and by issuing a composite notification. The policy remained as it was and in view of demand being made by the Department, a representation was made by the industries and on being satisfied, the Central Government issued a clarificatory Notification No. 95/94 on April 25, 1994. It was not a new notification granting exemption for the first time in respect of parts of power driven pumps to be used in the factory for manufacture of pumps but clarified the position and made the position explicit which was implicit. 9. Similarly the relevant portion of the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Ralson (India) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rst time in respect of parts of power driven pumps to be used in the factory for manufacture of pumps but clarified the position and made the position explicit which was implicit. 17. For the foregoing reasons, in our opinion, the appeals deserve to be allowed and are allowed accordingly. Deposit, if any, made by the appellant in pursuance of the order passed by the authorities below will be refunded to it. In the facts and circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs. 10. As we find that the compounded rubber was also rescinded by the same Notification dated 1-3-94 and reintroduced in the same manner vide another Notification issued on 28-3-1994, ratio of W.P. I.L. Ltd. case shall squarely apply to the present case as well. As a result, only on this ground, these appeals are allowed and the demand raised against the appellants is quashed. 10. By respectfully following the ratio as laid down in the above cases by Hon ble Supreme Court which is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, the impugned orders are set aside and the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. (Operative part of the order was pronounced in the ope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
