ORDER
G.R. Sharma, Member (T)
1. The captioned appeal arises out of the findings of the Id. Collector (Appeals) holding that “Considering that relief notification is with reference to Chapter X, notified list of Notifications relevant to Duty of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Act, 1986 do not cover the cited notification, I uphold the Order-in-Original and reject the Appeal”.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the new Central Excise Tariff was introduced with effect from 28.2.1986. With the introduction of the new Tariff, structure of the tariff underwent considerable change and required issue of fresh notifications. In the instant case, the appellants were availing benefits under Notfn. No. 167/79 dt. 19.4.1979 in respect of motor vehicle parts. With the introduction of the new Central Excise Tariff, this Notification became inapplicable to the goods manufactured by the Appellants. Another Notfn. No. 239/86 was issued with effect from 3.4.1986. Thus there was a time gap from 1.3.1986 to 2.4.1986 when the concession was not extended to the items in dispute under any notification. The Government of India enacted the Central Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Act, 1986 to serve the purpose of maintaining the effective rate of duty of excise in respect of certain goods at the level obtaining prior to the First day of March, 1986. This Act required that every notification issued by the Government of India on or after 3rd March, 1986, but before 8th of August, 1986 in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 notwithstanding the changes in the rate of duty of excise made by the Finance Bill of 1986, shall, in so far as such notification relates to such goods, be deemed to have and to have always had effect from the 1st day of March, 1986. In pursuance of these provisions of the Act, the Government of India issued a list indicating the Notifications covered by this Act. Notification No. 239/86 did not figure in this list. The lower authorities, therefore, held that since the Notification did not figure in the list issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, presumably Notfn. No. 239/86 was not the notification for the purpose of the Act, confirmed the demand and also rejected the refund claim and hence the appeal before us.
3. Shri Dayasagar, the Id. Consultant, appears for the Appellant whereas Shri D.S. Negi, the Id. JDR appears for the revenue.
4. Shri Dayasagar, the Id. Consultant submits that the list issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs purporting to list the notifications covered by the said Act was not an exhaustive list, but only an illustrative list. He submits that the Central Board of Excise and Customs clarified that though Notfn. No. 339/86 was not mentioned in the list issued earlier, yet this Notification is also a Notification covered by the provisions of the Central Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Act, 1986. He submits that Notfn. No. 167/79 prescribed a certain rate of duty applicable, among others, to their products, viz. Motor Vehicle Parts; that this Notification became inoperative with effect from 1.3.1986. He submits that the very purpose of Notfn. No. 167/79 was served by the subsequent Notfn. No. 239/86. He submits that since the intention of making the notification issued between 3rd March, 1986 and 8th August, 1986 to be effective from 1.3.1986 was covered by the said Act and since the list issued by the Central Government was not exhaustive, but was only illustrative, therefore, they were entitled to the benefit of Notfn. No. 239/86 right from 1.3.1986. He, therefore, prays that the Appeal may be allowed.
4.1. Shri D.S. Negi, the Id. SDR, reiterates the findings of the lower authorities.
5. Heard the submissions of both sides. We find that the short question for determination in this appeal is whether the list issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs was so exhaustive so as not to cover other notifications also which had the intention and provisions as required by the Act. We find that this issue came up before the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Saidex Industries v. CCE, Bangalore . In this case, the Tribunal while examining the provisions of the Act, held that all those notifications which maintained the level of Taxes at the level obtaining before 1.3.1986 and issued between 3.3.1986 and 8.8.1986 shall be the notifications covered by the Central Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Act, 1986. In the instant case, we find that Notfn. No. 239/86 maintains the level of Taxes on motor vehicle parts, among other items, at the same level as were obtaining under Notfn. No. 167/79 before 1.3.1986. We have also seen that the list issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs is not exhaustive as was clarified by the Tribunal while holding that Notfn. No. 239/86 was covered by the provisions of Central Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Act, 1986. In this view of the matter and having regard to the fact that Notfn. No. 239/86 maintained the level of taxes at the same level as was obtaining under Notfn. No. 167/79 and since this Notification was issued between 3.3.1986 and 8.8.1986, we hold that Notfn. No. 239/86 shall be deemed to be applicable with effect from 1.3.1986.
6. In the result, the Appal is allowed. Consequential relief, if any, shall be admissible to the appellant in accordance with law and in the light of the decision in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. UOI .
(Dictated in open court).