Page 54 - GSTL_16 April 2020_Vol 35_Part 3

268 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
1994, the exemption in respect of said item which was operative was either
withdrawn or revoked. The action was taken only with a view to rescinding
several notifications and by issuing a composite notification. The policy re-
mained as it was and in view of demand being made by the Department, a
representation was made by the industries and on being satisfied, the Cen-
tral Government issued a clarificatory Notification No. 95/94 on April 25,
1994. It was not a new notification granting exemption for the first time in
respect of parts of power driven pumps to be used in the factory for manu-
facture of pumps but clarified the position and made the position explicit
which was implicit.”
3.6 Reliance was also placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in
the case of Ralson (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-1, 2015
(319) E.L.T. 234 (S.C.) = (2015) 14 SCC 679, wherein the Court held thus :
“8. We may point out here that the issue has not come up before this
Court for the first time. In the case of W.P.I.L. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central
Excise, Meerut, U.P., 2005 (181) E.L.T. 359 (S.C.), this Court was concerned
with almost identical fact situation, albeit in relation to the product known
as ‘Part of Power Driven Pumps’. The power driven-pumps also were simi-
larly exempted which exemption was available to manufacturers since
1978. In the Notification No. 69/94-C.E., dated 1-3-94 whereby exemption
qua 389 earlier notifications was rescinded, the notification in respect of the
part of power-driven pumps was also included as rescinded. Thereafter, the
same item was again exempted by Notification No. 95/94-C.E. issued on
25-4-1994. In this manner, insofar as parts of power driven pumps are con-
cerned, there was no exemption in respect thereof for the period from 1-3-
1994 to 24-4-1994.
9. The assessee in the aforesaid case took the same plea by arguing that
since the decision of the exemption vide Notification dated 1-3-1994 was an
inadvertent error and the Government realizing this mistake had reintro-
duced the exemption it will be treated as only corrective and clarificatory in
nature. This contention was accepted by this Court in the aforesaid judg-
ment holding that even during the period from 1-3-1994 to 24-4-1994, the
manufacturers of part of power driven pumps shall continue to get the ex-
emption. The relevant part of the said judgment which squarely applies to
the present case as well is reproduced below in paras 16-17.
“16. In view of the consistent policy of the Government of exempt-
ing parts of power driven pumps utilized by the factory within the
factory premises, it could not be said that while issuing Notification
No. 46/94 of March 1, 1994, the exemption in respect of said item
which was operative was either withdrawn or revoked. The action
was taken only with a view to rescinding several notifications and by
issuing a composite notification. The policy remained as it was and in
view of demand being made by the Department, a representation was
made by the industries and on being satisfied, the Central Govern-
ment issued a clarificatory Notification No. 95/94 on April 25, 1994. It
was not a new notification granting exemption for the first time in re-
spect of parts of power driven pumps to be used in the factory for
manufacture of pumps but clarified the position and made the posi-
tion explicit which was implicit.”
17. For the foregoing reasons, in our opinion, the appeals deserve to
be allowed and are allowed accordingly. Deposit, if any, made by the
appellant in pursuance of the order passed by the authorities below
will be refunded to it. In the facts and circumstances of the case, how-
ever, there shall be no order as to costs.”
GST LAW TIMES  16th April 2020  174