HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD Vs. COLLECTOR OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE assessees herein are aggrieved by the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune who has upheld the order of the Assistant Collector rejecting the claim for refund of duty paid on flat bed textile printing screens manufactured and cleared during the period 31 -3 -1986 to 31 -10 -1989, on the ground during the above mentioned period, there was no Section 11C Notification exempting excise duty on the goods in dispute when used otherwise than in the factory of production, and that the exemption to such goods used outside the factory of production was available only from 1 -11 -1989 with the issue of Notification 190/89, dated 1 -11 -1989.

(2.) THE appellants have asked for a decision on merits; hence, we heard the learned DR and perused the records.

(3.) PRIOR to 1986, textile printing frame and nickel rotary cylinder screens for captive consumption were exempted from duty in terms of Notification No. 118/75 if used within the factory of production. Consequent to change in the tariff structure in 1986, the goods were classifiable under Chapter Heading 84.42 and liable to duty, in the absence of any exemption Notification for captive consumption. On 3 -9 -1987, Notification 201/87 was issued granting exemption to printing frames falling under Heading 84.42 if used within the factory of production in the printing of textile fabrics. Duty was still chargeable in respect of clearances effective during 1 -3 -1986 to 2 -9 -1987. However, on representation from the industry, a Notification under Section 11C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was issued vide Notification 39/90, dated 10 -10 -1990 wherein the Government ordered that duty on printing frames used within the factory of production for printing textile fabrics shall not be charged for the period 28 -2 -1986 to 2 -9 -1987. This exemption was not applicable in the case of printing frames used in any other factory of the same manufacturer manufacturing these frames. On 1 -11 -1989, Notification 190/89 was issued exempting such printing frames used in any other factory of the same manufacturer subject to following of Chapter X procedure. From the above it is clear the exemption to printing frames used by the appellants in another unit is available only with the issue of Notification 190/89, and hence the authorities below have rightly sanctioned refund claim dated 12 -12 -1990 only for the period from 1 -11 -1989 to 18 -11 -1989 and rejected the balance claim. The contention of the appellants that the Notification 190/89 operates with retrospective effect cannot be accepted in the absence of Notification providing for retrospective effect.