Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2001 DIGILAW 1226 (SC)

Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad v. Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd.

2001-08-01

B.N.KIRPAL, N.SANTOSH HEGDE

body2001
ORDER : 1. While availing of the benefit of Notification No. 201/79, the respondents were getting the benefit of set-off of the excise duty paid on the inputs in the manufacture of the end product, namely, paper. Because of the change in law, the effect of this notification came to an end on 1st March, 1986, but then by another Notification No. 225/86 dated 3rd April, 1986 the same benefit as was granted by the earlier Notification No. 201/79 was made available. 2. The respondents claimed that they were entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Section 2 of the Central Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Act, 1986 and, therefore, they were entitled to get the benefit of the notification dated 3rd April, 1986 with effect from 1st March, 1986. Following its earlier decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Jammu Bottling Co. P. Ltd., Jammu, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the contention of the respondents herein was well founded. Hence, this appeal. 3. We find that the decision in Jammu Bottling's case was not accepted by the Department and an appeal (Civil Appeal No. 4458/89) against the same was filed in this Court. By order dated 4th May, 1995, Civil Appeal No. 4458/1989 was dismissed by this Court. The effect of that dismissal was that the decision in Jammu Bottling's case stood affirmed which meant that the benefit of a subsequent notification of after 1st March, 1986 granting such a set off was made available retrospectively with effect from 1st March, 1986. The facts in the present case are in pari materia. 4. The only difference between this case and Jammu Bottling's case is that here the subsequent notification granting set off is of 3rd April, 1986 whereas in Jammu Bottling's case the subsequent notification was of 27th May, 1986. Otherwise, the facts are identical. 5. In view of the decision of this Court in Jammu Bottling's case (Civil Appeal No. 4458/89), we are of the view that the judgment of the Tribunal does not call for any interference. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.