ORDER
K. Sankararaman, Member (T)
1. This batch of four appeals cover a common issue involving the same issue, namely, retrospective applicability of exemption Notification No. 236/86, dated 3-4-1986 which granted full exemption from duty for parts of power driven pumps used captively in the manufacture of such pumps. Shri G. Shiv Dass, learned Counsel for the appellant states that this matter stands covered by Tribunal decision in Saga Electricals Pvt. Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay reported in 1997 (94) E.L.T. 265 which was with reference to this very Notification. Prior to the coming into force of the present Central Excise Tariff, such goods were eligible for exemption from duty under Notification No. 118/75, dated 30-4-1975 and 64/86. When the new Tariff was introduced, no Notification was available for continued grant of such benefit beyond 28-2-1986. The position was rectified with the issue of Notification No. 236/86, dated 3-4-1986 which had the effect of reviving the benefit which was granted under the old Tariff. With a view to cover the intervening period for which no Notification was available in such type of cases, the Government passed the Central Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Act, 1986. It is the contention of the learned Counsel that the Notification dated 3-4-1986 would be covered by this Act since it had the effect of maintaining the same rate of duty, namely, nil rate for the goods in question at the rate in force prior to 1-3-1986. This is the view taken by the Tribunal in the aforesaid decision, he submitted.
2. Shri Satnam Singh, learned Senior Departmental Representative states in reply that the Notification in question does not figure in the list of Notifications which have been listed by the Government as those covered by the retrospective Act referred to above. He also cited the Supreme Court decision in AIR 1977 SC 55 wherein it had been laid down unless the terms of a statute expressly so provide or necessarily require it, retrospective operation should not be given to a statute so as to take away or impair an existing right or create a new obligation or impose a new liability otherwise than as regards matters of procedure. On this basis, it was contended by the learned SDR that the said Notification cannot be held to be retrospectively applicable w.e.f. 1-3-1986. In the circumstances, he resisted the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel and contended that the decision of the authorities below is correct in law and deserves to be upheld.
3. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. We have perused the record as also the Tribunal decision cited at the bar. Though, the contention of the learned Senior Departmental Representative is that the Notification in question does not figure in the list of Notifications said to be covered by the Central Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Act, 1986, circulated by the Government that does not abridge the scope of the said Act vis-a-vis the Notification in question if it satisfied the criteria laid down in the Act. The list referred to by the Senior Departmental Representative is not statutory in nature but issued for the sake of convenience to identify such Notifications. There can be omissions in that, as indeed there was. If a Notification is actually covered by the Retrospective Exemption Act, the fact that it did not figure in the list circulated by the Government by way of clarification does not conclude the issue and the list did not override the provisions of the Act itself. We see no reason for not following the Tribunal decision in the Saga Electricals Pvt. Limited case which was specifically with reference to the same Notification No. 236/86, dated 3-4-1986 with which we are concerned in the present matter. We accordingly set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals.