S.B. SINHA, J. - (1.) INTERPRETATION of an exemption notification bearing No. 4/2006-CE dated 1.03.2006 is in question in these appeals which arise out of a judgment and order dated 30.04.2008 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal"), Principal Bench, New Delhi in Custom Appeal Nos. 43-47 of 2008.
(2.) RESPONDENT is engaged in the business of textile and manufacturing of textile goods, viz., Dystar Indigo VAT 40 per cent SOL/ Indigo Powder 90 per cent Wettable. The said imported goods fell under Tariff Heading 32041559. Additional Duty (CVD) was charged on the assessable value of the goods purported to be in terms of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (for short "the Act"). Urging that no excise duty was payable on the said goods in view of the notification dated 1.03.2006, the respondent preferred appeals aggrieved thereby. The said contention was upheld. Appellant approached the Tribunal thereagainst. The said appeal, by reason of the impugned judgment, has been dismissed. Mr. Harish Chandra, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that :- (i) The appellate authority as also the Tribunal committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgment insofar as they failed" to take into consideration that an exemption notification should be construed strictly. (ii) An assessee would be entitled to the benefit of an exemption notification only in the event the conditions precedent therefor are satisfied. (iii) As the raw material was required to be a product of the same factory, the impugned notification, the learned counsel argued, was not attracted. (iv) In any event, the Tribunal having based its decision on a judgment of a Three- Judge Bench of this Court in Thermax Private Ltd. v. Collector of Customs [JT 1992 (5) SC 281], the correctness whereof having been doubted and referred to the Constitution Bench in Hyderabad Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [JT 1999 (4) SC 95], the impugned judgment is wholly unsustainable. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, however, supported the impugned judgment.
(3.) WE may, however, notice that part of the judgment in Thermax Private Ltd. (supra), in terms whereof the manner in which Chapter X of the Act is to be applied has merely been referred to the Constitution Bench and not the question which is involved herein. Parliament enacted the Act; Section 3(1) whereof provides for levy of additional duty equal to excise duty.;