ORDER
Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)
1. The appellants herein are a small-scale industry. They exported 5 pallets/containers of Dollies to Nepal. The benefit of Notifiction 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 was sought to be denied on the ground that goods cleared to Nepal were not goods cleared for home consumption. Proceedings were initiated for demanding duty on such clearance and Assistant Collector confirmed a duty of Rs. 38,325/- against the appellants. The lower Appellate authority upheld the order of the Assistant Collector; hence this appeal.
2. We have heard Shri Jitender Singh, learned Advocate, and Shri R.K. Sharma, learned DR. The issue involved in this case is as to whether duty is to be paid on clearances made for export of goods to Nepal, or in other words, whether clearance to Nepal is clearance for home consumption. This issue stands covered against the appellants by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bishwanath Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1993 (64) E.L.T. 452 (T); Sandeep Industries [1996 (86) E.L.T. 556] and Standard Chemical Industries [1999 (114) E.L.T. 186]. The learned Counsel seeks to distinguish these decisions and he contends that during the period in dispute Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules did not provide for export in bond without payment of duty to Nepal and therefore clearance of goods to Nepal should be treated as clearance for home consumption and not as clearance for export. He refers to the subsequent amendment to Rule 13 to provide for export in bond without payment of duty on clearances of goods to Nepal and to Notification 175/86, and contends that the subsequent amendment reflected the existing intention of the Government to treat clearances to Nepal as clearance for home consumption and contends that the subsequent amendment therefore, has retrospective operation.
3. The plea is opposed by the learned DR who submits that the amendment is a substantive one and therefore, has prospective operation only as held by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Larsen & Toubro [2000 (119) E.L.T. 51].
4. We see force in the submissions of the learned DR, in view of the decisions of the Tribunal cited supra and in view of the fact that amendment to SSI Notification by explanation V to. Notification 1/93 can only operate prospectively and did not cover the period of demand in this case being July 1990. We are not persuaded to depart from the earlier findings of the Tribunal on the issue in dispute; hence following the ratio of the above cited decisions, we uphold the duty liability on clearance of goods to Nepal. The plea that the demand is barred by limitation since clearance took place in July 1990 while the show cause notice was issued on 18-1-1991 is also not tenable. Although the appellants were not required to pay duty and file monthly RT12 returns on their clearance for home consumption for the reason that such clearance was below the ceiling limit prescribed in the SSI Notification, when it came to clearance to Nepal, they were required to pay duty and submit monthly RT 12 returns. Therefore, the date on which RT 12 returns was required to be filed, is the relevant date in terms of Section 11A(3)(ii)(a)(A) of the Act for the purpose of computation of limitation period. Applying this, date, the demand is undisputedly within time. We therefore, reject the submission that the demand is hit by limitation. In the result, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.