9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esentation for the respondents despite notice, nor any request of theirs for adjournment. I have examined the records and heard the learned SDR. 2. The short question arising for consideration in this case is whether Notification No. 52/2002-C.E., dated 17-10-2002, which superseded Notification No. 121/94-C.E., dated 11-8-1994, can be held to be clarificatory with retrospective effect as held by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g tobacco for the period 1-9-2002 to 16-10-2002. Learned SDR has challenged this decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) by submitting that the amendment brought by Notification No. 52/2002-C,E. was substantive and hence would not be clarificatory. In this connection, reliance has been placed on the following decisions :- (i) Gothi Thermoforming Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chenna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s connection, it is pertinent to note that NCCD is a comparatively a new levy which was brought into force by the Finance Act, 2001. The Central Government, obviously, did not intend to grant exemption in respect of NCCD prior to 17-10-2002. Had it been otherwise, NCCD could also have been added to the list of duties of excise in Notification No, 121/94 earlier. 3. As rightly pointed out by the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
