CCE Vs. WINSOME YARNS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal which has been preferred by the Revenue against the impugned Order -in -Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the issue relates to the availability of benefit of. Notification No. 1/95 -CE dated 4.1.1995, as amended, vide Notification No. 31 /98 -CE dated 15.9.1998 to the respondents.

(2.) THE learned SDR has contended that the benefit of the above -said notification after amendment could not be allowed to the respondents, although they as 100% EOU procured HSD/FO, on the basis of CT -3 certificate issued by the Superintendent, EOU Range, as the approval of the Commissioner of Customers on the recommendation of the Development Commissioner was required to be taken by them before procuring the same. Since the respondents did not take such an approval, they are liable to pay the Central Excise duty of Rs. 1,52,966 on the HSD/FO procured by them during the period 15.9.1998 to 30.11.1998 and the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

(3.) THE learned counsel, on the other hand, has reiterated the correctness of the impugned Order -in -Appeal and contended that even after the amendment of the original Notification No. 1/95 -CE dated 4.1.1995, the CT -3 certificate issued to the respondents remained valid document for enabling them to procure duty free HSD/FO as the amendment did not impose any new obligation on them of obtaining the approval of Commissioner of Customs on the recommendation of the Development Commissioner. The learned counsel has also contended that the oil procured by the respondents was covered by Serial No. 7 of Annexure -I to Notification and as such the amending Notification did not effect the right of the respondents under the original notification, detailed above. The learned counsel has also placed reliance on the ratio of the law laid down in the case of Shamken Spinners Ltd. v. CCE, Lucknow, 2002 (79) ECC 83 (T) : 2002 (139) ELT 128 (T). We have heard both sides and gone through the record. The respondents are 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn. For procuring HSD/FO, they obtained CT -3 certificate from the Superintendent of the concerned Range in order to avail the benefit of Notification No. 1/95 -CE dated 4.1.1995 which provided exemption from payment of duty to the 100% EOU in respect of the specified excisable goods when brought (sic) in connection with the manufacture/packing of articles or for the production or packing or job work for export of goods out of India subject to the following of procedure set out in Chapter 10 of the Central Excise Rules. But this Notification was admittedly amended vide Notification No. 31/98 -CE dated 15.9.1998 when a new Provision 3B, was inserted in Annexure I to the said Notification which reads was under: