COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. LAKSHMI PACKAGINGS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the Revenue. There is no representation for the respondents despite notice, nor any request of theirs for adjournment. I have examined the records and heard the learned SDR.

(2.) THE short question arising for consideration in this case is whether Notification No. 52/2002 -CE dated 17.10.2002, which superseded Notification No. 121/94 -CE dated 11.08.1994, can be held to be clarificatory with retrospective effect as held by the lower appellate authority. The predecessor -Notification had provided for exemption from payment of Basic Excise Duty [leviable under the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act] and Additional Excise Duty [leviable under Section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act] on certain goods specified in the Table annexed to the Notification. The successor -Notification added National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD, for short) [leviable under Section 136 of the Finance Act, 2001] also to the duties of excise for the purpose of exemption. In the impugned order, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) held that this amendment was clarificatory and hence had retrospective effect and, accordingly, he granted the benefit of exemption from payment of NCCD on chewing tobacco for the period 01.09.2002 to 16.10.2002. Learned SDR has challenged this decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) by submitting that the amendment brought by Notification No. 52/2002 -CE was substantive and hence would not be clarificatory. In this connection, reliance has been placed on the following decisions:

(3.) AS rightly pointed out by the learned SDR, Notification No. 52/02 -CE dated 17.10.2002 providing for exemption from payment of NCCD on the excisable goods mentioned therein is the first Exemption Notification insofar as NCCD is concerned. It is far -fetched to say that the exemption provided under this Notification should be extended for a period prior to the date of introduction of the exemption. The Revenue's appeal is well -founded and is firmly supported by the case law cited. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)