Exemption notifications must be construed strictly, and the benefit of a notification cannot be extended retrospectively.

ORDER

1. This order shall dispose of all the three appeals as the facts are identical in these appeals. For the sake of convenience, the facts are taken from Civil Appeal No. 641 of 2001.

2. This is a statutory appeal filed under Section 35 - L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short "the Tribunal") in Final Order No. 1055/2000 - B (composite Final Orders Nos. 1052 - 55/2000 - B) dated 3 - 7 - 2000 passed in Appeal No. E/2635/99 - B.

Brief facts

3. The appellants were manufacturing hot rolled untrimmed sheets/circles of copper and copper alloys falling under Chapter Heading No. 74.09 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants were holding a Central excise registration certificate and were clearing the goods on payment of Central excise duty till 28 - 2 - 1994. They surrendered their Central excise registration certificate with effect from 24 - 3 - 1994. A show - cause 9 notice was issued under the Act on 12 - 7 - 1994 to show cause as to why the duty amounting to Rs 2,14,780 for the period from 1 - 3 - 1994 to 31 - 3 - 1994 and Rs. 87,512 for the period 1 - 4 - 1994 to 10 - 4 - 1994 be not imposed and recovered under Rule 9(2) of the Rules read with Section 11 - A of the Act. Notice for levy of penalty was also issued. The duty demand of Rs 2,14,780 and Rs 87,512 in respect of the goods cleared by them during the period 1 - 31994 to 31 - 3 - 1994 and 1 - 4 - 1994 to 10 - 4 - 1994 respectively were confirmed by the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, Gurgaon and a penalty of Rs 28,000 was also imposed on them vide Order - in - Original No. 55 of 1995 dated 16 - 3 - 1995, inter alia, on the following grounds:

"(i) The suppliers had sent raw material for job work under Rule a 57 - F(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 to the appellants, after filing intimation under Rule 57 - F(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 but failed to follow the provisions of Chapter V - AA of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and also did not pay any duty on the goods job worked upon.

(ii) Hence, the documents based on which job work was done were not proper documents under Rule 57 - F(2) of the Central Excise Rules, b 1944 and nor the exemption under Notification No. 214/86 was attracted on intermediate products.

(iii) Even though Rule 57 - F(2) procedure was followed inasmuch goods were received by the appellants under the prescribed challans, the benefit under the said rule was not available for the following reasons:

(a) Declaration under Rule 57 - G of the Central Excise Rules was not filed.

(b) Credit under Rule 57 - A of the Central Excise Rules was not availed.

(c) Duty liability in terms of Notification No. 1/93 was not discharged by the suppliers of the semi - finished goods/raw materia1."

4. The appeal filed by the appellants before the Commissioner (Appeals) was dismissed.

5. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the appellants filed an appeal before the Tribunal which remanded the case for fresh adjudication with the following observations:

"(i) Notification No. 59/94 (which amends Notification No. 1/93 and 8 grants SSI benefits to goods under dispute) and this aspect should have been examined by the adjudicating authority as well as the Commissioner (Appeals).

(ii) Notification No. 214/86 fixes responsibility for payment of Central excise duty on suppliers of raw material/semi - finished goods and f lays down that the procedure for movement of goods shall be the same as prescribed under Rule 57 - F(2) and it is for the supplier to comply and the department to verify whether the conditions of Notification No. 214/86 have been observed. The duty liability if any, which may arise in case of non - fulfilment of conditions prescribed in para 2 would lie on the suppliers of raw material or semi - finished goods as the responsibility has 9 been explicitly cast on him as a principal manufacturer.

(iii) That in norm