ORDER
P.C. Jain, Member (T)
1. Briefly stated facts of this case are as follows :-
1.2 The respondents herein were engaged in the manufacture of glass bottles falling under sub-heading 7007.90 and availing the benefit of Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-1986 upto 31-3-1989. Since their declaration of excisable goods during the period 1988-1989 exceeded Rs. 1.5 crores, they were disentitled to the benefit of the said notification from the new Financial year i.e. 1-4-1989. However, Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was amended by Notification No. 119/89, dated 27-4-1989 increasing the overall eligibility limit of clearance of excisable goods from 1.5 crores to 2 crores during the preceding financial year. The appellants’ clearances had not exceeded the limit of Rs. 2 crores in the preceding financial year. Hence they became entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. w.e.f. 27-4-1989. Consequently, they became entitle to the benefits of full exemption or concessional rates of duty upto a limit of Rs. 75 lakhs in terms of the said notification. A question has arisen whether the said exemption limit of Rs. 75 lakhs has to be reckoned w.e.f. 1-4-1989 or from 27-4-1989. Revenue contends that the clearances of Rs. 75 lakhs have to be reckoned from 1-4-1989 because the notification specifically says so. In other words, Revenue intends to include the duty paid clearances effected by the respondents herein during the period 1-4-1989 to 26-4-1989 towards computing aggregate clearances of specified goods of Rs. 75 lakhs. On the other hand, contention of the respondents is that this limit will count only from 27-4-1989 when they became entitled to the benefit of the said notification.
3. Lower appellate authority has upheld the contention of the respondents herein. Hence this appeal by Revenue.
4. We have heard the learned SDR, Shri A.K. Agarwal. We have also gone through the written submissions made on behalf of the respondents herein by their authorised representative (consultants). Respondents’ case rests on the fact that an exemption notification cannot be given retrospective effect unless there are express words to that effect or there is a clear implied intention from the notification to that effect. It has, therefore, been urged that all clearances in terms of the notification have to be compute only with reference to the data on which the respondents have come within the ambit of the notification.
5. On the other hand, Revenue’s contention is that the notification specifically gives the cut off date as 1st day of April in any financial year for computing the various clearances mentioned in terms of the notification. Therefore, once an assessee has come within the ambit of the notification computation will have to be done, according to Revenue, in terms of the cut off date given in the notification.
6. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. We are not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned SDR. Question of computation of the clearances in terms of the notification would arise only when an assessee comes within the ambit of the notification. When the assessee was not working within the ambit of the notification for the period 1-4-1989 to 26-4-1989 the question of computing the clearances in terms of the said notification w.e.f. 1st day of April 1989 would not arise. In fact, the assessee paid the duty during that period without availing the benefit of the said notification on payment of normal duty but for this notification. If we accept the contention of the Revenue then the respondents would be entitled to the benefit of the clearances made during the earlier period i.e. 1-4-1989 to 26-4-1989 but that would amount to giving the exemption notification retrospective effect. On the same analogy we cannot give retrospective effect to the contention of the Revenue by counting the clearances for the period 1-4-1989 to 26-4-1989 for computing clearances in terms of the said notification since that would amount to giving the exemption notification retrospective effect. Hence, we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue.