Wednesday, 22 March 2017 08:18

CESTAT Chennai : M/s. Mayur Textile Processors Vs. CCE, Salem : 15th March, 2017 Featured

Written by 
Rate this item
(0 votes)

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI

E/657/2005
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 115/2005-CE (SLM) dated 29.6.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Salem)

M/s. Mayur Textile Processors
Appellant

Vs.

CCE, Salem
Respondent

Appearance
Shri Raghavendra B Hanyer, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri S. Nagalingam, AC (AR) for the Respondent

CORAM
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member
Honble Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Technical Member

Date of Hearing / Decision: 15.03.2017


FINAL ORDER No. 40502 / 2017

Per D.N. Panda

Appellant says that the demand arose during the transition period of withdrawal of the notification benefit which was again reintroduced. Such reintroduction cannot be construed to be prospective.


2. The Notifications in question are Notification No. 3/2001-CE dated 1.3.2001, Notification No. 6/2002-CE dated 1.3.2002 and as further amended by Notification No. 47/2002-CE dated 6.9.2002. He relies on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Government of India Vs. Indian Tobacco Association reported in 2005 (187) ELT 162 (SC) to submit that in absence of express provision in the reintroduced notification, the interregnum period is not barred to be granted exemption benefit what that was granted by earlier notification..


3. We make it clear that what was the grant in the past, if not denied by subsequent notification through express provision contained therein, the previous grant is not deniable for the reason that the law as that was in force on the date of the lis shall govern the proceedings till its end. We may state that following above said apex Court judgment, Tribunal has extended the benefit in the case of Needle Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem reported in 2016 (41) STR 641 (Tri.  Chennai) holding that the grant of the previous notification being same by the reintroduced notification, interregnum period is equally entitled to the said grant.


4. In the result, appeal is allowed for the aforesaid reasoning.


(Dictated and pronounced in open court)


(MADHU MOHAN DAMODHAR)             (D.N. PANDA)
Technical Member                 Judicial Member


Rex

Additional Info

  • Date Range: Wednesday, 15 March 2017
  • Court/Authority: CESTAT
  • Tax Type: Central Excise
  • Petitioner/Appellant: M/s. Mayur Textile Processors Vs. CCE, Salem
  • Respondent: M/s. Mayur Textile Processors Vs. CCE, Salem
  • Appl no. or Appl year: E/657/2005
  • Supreme Court Location: Delhi
  • CESTAT Location: Ahmedabad
  • AAR Location: Delhi
  • Authority: Supreme Court
Read 425 times