2002 (1) TMI 522 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal allows sequential benefit claims for cement manufacturer under Notification No. 5/94-C.E.

The Tribunal held that M/s. Dwarka Mineral & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 5/94-C.E. for cement manufactured by ... SSI Exemption Issues Involved:Whether M/s. Dwarka Mineral & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. are eligible to avail the benefit of Notification No. 5/94-C.E. in respect of cement manufactured by them.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Eligibility for Notification BenefitThe main issue in the appeals filed by the Revenue was whether M/s. Dwarka Mineral & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. could avail the benefit of Notification No. 5/94-C.E. for cement they manufactured. The Additional Commissioner of Central Excise had denied the benefit based on the proviso to the notification, stating that it does not apply if a manufacturer already benefits from another exemption. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, noting that the notifications were not used simultaneously in the past. The Revenue argued that the benefit can only be claimed after clearing goods worth Rs. 75 lakhs under Notification No. 1/93. They contended that a clarification by the Central Board of Excise & Customs supported their stance. The issue was whether the benefit of both notifications could be availed sequentially.Issue 2: Precedents and InterpretationThe Respondent's advocate referred to precedents, specifically the case of CCE v. Ambica Cement Ltd. and Mamta Cement Co. v. CCE, to support their position. These cases established that a manufacturer could avail of Notification No. 5/94 after exhausting the benefit of Notification No. 1/93 for clearances beyond a certain threshold. The Tribunal in these cases interpreted the debarring clause to mean that simultaneous benefits from different notifications were not allowed. The Respondents relied on these judgments to argue for their eligibility for the Notification No. 5/94 benefit.Judgment Analysis:The Tribunal considered the arguments from both sides and reviewed the relevant notifications. It noted that Notification No. 1/93 provided an exemption for Small Scale Industries, while Notification No. 5/94 offered a concessional rate for cement with specific conditions. Referring to the second proviso of Notification No. 5/94, which excluded cement for which a manufacturer availed of the Notification No. 1/93 exemption, the Tribunal found that the issue had been previously settled in the Ambica Cement Ltd. case. The Tribunal held that the Respondents were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 5/94 for clearances beyond Rs. 50 lakhs, following the precedents set in earlier cases. Consequently, all four appeals filed by the Revenue were rejected.In conclusion, the judgment clarified the eligibility criteria for availing multiple notifications sequentially and relied on established precedents to support the decision in favor of the Respondents.