2000 (9) TMI 864 - Commissioner - Central Excise

Commissioner remands case for reconsideration, emphasizes correct exemption notification application. Clarifies aggregate value assessment for eligibility.

The Commissioner set aside the Assistant Commissioner's order and remanded the case for reconsideration, emphasizing the correct application of exemption ... SSI Exemption Issues:1. Interpretation of exemption notifications under Central Excise Tariff Act.2. Clubbing of clearances for determining eligibility for exemptions.3. Correct application of duty rates under different notifications.Analysis:1. The appeal involved the interpretation of two exemption notifications, Notfn. No. 75/87 and Notfn. No. 1/93, under the Central Excise Tariff Act. The appellant, a manufacturing company, was availing benefits under these notifications for excisable goods. The issue arose when a Show Cause Notice was issued, alleging that the appellant had incorrectly availed exemptions and demanded duty payment. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty, leading to the appeal.2. The appellant contended that the Assistant Commissioner misunderstood the aggregate value of clearances required for exemption eligibility. They argued that the notifications did not prohibit simultaneous availment and relied on a circular by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC). The appellant also cited previous court decisions supporting their interpretation.3. After hearing the appeal, the Commissioner found that the Show Cause Notice was based on the appellant allegedly availing full exemptions beyond the prescribed limits. However, upon review, it was determined that the appellant was entitled to full exemption up to specific clearance values under each notification. The Commissioner clarified that the value of clearances under both notifications should only be combined to assess eligibility, not to limit exemptions. As the Assistant Commissioner's order did not reflect this clarification, the case was remanded back for a decision in accordance with the correct interpretation.4. In conclusion, the Commissioner set aside the Assistant Commissioner's order and remanded the case for reconsideration. The judgment emphasized the importance of correctly applying the provisions of exemption notifications and ensuring that the aggregate value of clearances is assessed for eligibility purposes without restricting the entitlement to exemptions under each notification independently.