ORDER
G.P. Agarwal, Member (J)
1. These are three appeals. Two Appeals bearing No. E/2005/88-C and E/2866/89-C have been filed by M/s. Khandelwal Lab (P) Ltd. whereas the third appeal bearing No. E/3964/88-C is by the Revenue against that part of the order-in-original No. AMP-570/BIII-370/88 (which is the subject matter of Appeal No. E / 2866/89-C filed by the assessee also) whereby the Collector (Appeals) has directed that amounts of duty demanded will be worked out again limited period of six months only.
2. Appearing on behalf of the assessee M/s. Khandelwal Lab. (P) Ltd. Ms. P.P. Bhandari, Ld. Counsel submitted that the authorities below have wrongly denied the benefit of exemption Notification No. 122/86, dated 1-3-1986. Elaborating on her submission she submitted that the assessee company is engaged in the manufacture of drugs and pharmaceutical products. It inter alia manufactures certain products which are sold under the trade name “Vermisole” which contains “Levamisole Hydrochloride”. The said products are produced in 50 mg and 150 mg and also as Vermisole Syrup. Each of these products contains Levamisole Hydrochloride. The appellants filed the relevant classification list for the said products claiming exemption from excise duty under Notification No. 122/86, dated 1-3-1986. However, it was rejected by both the authorities below wrongly interpreting the said Notification. Continuing further she submitted that their said product is covered by Sl. No. 16 of the Annexure appended to Notification No. 122/86. She highlighted that the said Notification No. 122/86 was amended by Notification No. 455/86, dated 21-11-1986 which also support the case of the appellants. But curiously enough the authorities below held otherwise holding that the said Notification No. 455/86 dated 21-11-1986 which amends the Notification No. 122/86, dated 1-3-1986 is not of clarificatory nature and, therefore, benefit of this Notification cannot be extended to the clearances affected prior to the issue of the said Notification dated 21-11-1986. She submitted that this Tribunal in the case of Johnson & Johnson Limited, Bombay v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-III – 1994 (23) ETR 455 has held that amended Notification No. 455/86-C.E. is of a clarificatory nature and intention of the Government of India was to grant exemption from the inception of Notification No. 122/86-C.E. She also cited the cases of Parke Davis (India) Ltd., Bombay v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, 1984 (15) E.L.T. 231 wherein it was held that strict reading of an exemption Notification is desirable of all who implement and interpret a taxation law. Case of Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Customs -1992 (58) E.L.T. 105 was also cited to show that the amended Notification can also be of clarificatory nature. In reply Shri Somesh Arora, Ld. JDR supported the impugned orders.
3. As regards the Appeal No. E/3964/88-C filed by the Revenue he submitted that the question as to whether the demand was to be restricted to six months would arise only in case the decision goes against the assessee.
4. We have considered the submissions. From the record we find that the assessee M/s. Khandelwal Lab (P) Ltd. filed their classification list No. 12/86 and 13/86 dated 1-3-1986 claiming exemption under Notification No. 122/86, dated 1-3-1986 which was denied for the period from 1-3-1986 to 20-11-1986 on the ground that the amended Notification No. 455/86 dated 21-11-1986 is prospective being not of a clarificatory nature and, therefore, would be effective from 21-11-1986. In the case of Johnson & Johnson Ltd. Bombay v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-Ill, supra, this Tribunal held that the amended Notification No. 455/86-C.E. is of a clarificatory nature and the intention of the Government of India was to grant exemption from the inception of Notification No. 122/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986. Consequently, the appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. AMP/628/B-III-279/87/6504, dated 27-10-1987 passed by the very Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, that is to say, the same Collector of Appeals who has passed the impugned orders in the present appeals, was set aside and the benefit was extended to the assessee, namely, Johnson & Johnson Ltd. Thus, following the ratio of the said decision we set aside the impugned orders passed by the authorities below denying the benefit of exemption Notification No. 122/86, dated 1-3-1986 and hold that the present assessee, namely, M/s. Khandelwal Lab (P) Ltd. was entitled for the benefit of exemption Notification No. 122/86 dated 1-3-1986 read with amended Notification No. 455/86 dated 21-11-1986 from 1-3-1986 as claimed by them. Consequently, we allow both the appeals bearing No. E/2005/86-C and E/2866/89-C filed by M/s. Khandelwal Lab (P) Ltd. with consequential reliefs to the appellants, if any, according to law. As a sequel thereof the question involved in the Appeal No. E/3964/88-C filed by the Revenue as to whether the demand was to be restricted to six months or not as held by the Collector (Appeals) does not require any consideration at our end.
5. All the three appeals stand disposed of accordingly.