COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. EURO COTSPIN LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Revenue appeal. The respondents are a 100% ECU. They procured fuel for use in their plant in terms of exemption contained in Notification No. 1/95 -C.E., based on the strength of CT -3 Certificate issued by the Range Supdt. The said notification was amended on 15 -9 -1998 vide Notification No. 31/98 -C.E. and according to the Deptt., from that date the EOUs were required to obtain approval of Commissioner of Customs for obtaining Fuel Lubricants and consumable goods. This requirement was introduced (by Notification No. 31/98) at Sr. No. 3B of the Table annexed to the said Notification. The supplies obtained beyond 15 -9 -1998 (as detailed in the SCN) being without approval from the Commissioner of Customs, the exemption was proposed to be denied. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand which on appeal from the respondents was set aside by Commissioner (Appeals). The instant appeal from the Revenue seeks restoration of the order of the original authority.

(2.) Heard the earned DR.

(3.) We note that, it is an undisputed fact that the respondents had obtained the supplies against a CT -3 certificate issued by a competent authority. The amendment only introduced an entry at Sr. No. 3B. It is obvious that, prior to the said amendment, the sourcing of the fuels was permitted without the need of obtaining the Commissioner's permission. We note that, a vested right, which accrued through a CT -3 certificate issued by a competent authority cannot be taken away on the basis of an additional condition introduced through Notification No. 31/88 -C.E. requiring a permission from the Commissioner, when such a condition did not exist at the time of issue of CT -3 and the said CT -3 continued to remain valid at the time of procurement. Besides, the recommendations and approvals could also be granted on a post facto basis since the text of the said entry refers to only "approval" and not necessarily "prior approval" as attempted to be interpreted in the Deptt.'s appeal. As long as there is no finding to the effect that the use of "fuel" in question, was not in accordance with the provisions of the notification, there is no case to deny the benefit. Therefore, we find no merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue.