Jurisdictional objection and SSI exemption: later-period denial failed after earlier relief was upheld on the same facts.

A jurisdictional objection to adjudication was rejected where the departmental challenge was not pending when the assessee's appeal was decided, and the objection was also treated as legally unsustainable because an order does not lose jurisdiction merely for being contrary to a Board circular. The discussion also states that SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/99-C.E. could not be denied for a later period when relief had already been upheld for an earlier period on the same factual matrix, with the Larger Bench view recognising inclusion of pre-option duty-paid clearances in the aggregate value for the notification.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Revenue's challenge to the adjudicating authority's jurisdiction could succeed when the departmental appeal on that ground was filed after the assessee's appeal had already been decided, and whether the objection was otherwise sustainable. (ii) Whether SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/99-C.E. could be denied for the subsequent period after it had been allowed for the earlier period.

Issue (i): Whether the Revenue's challenge to the adjudicating authority's jurisdiction could succeed when the departmental appeal on that ground was filed after the assessee's appeal had already been decided, and whether the objection was otherwise sustainable.

Analysis: The departmental jurisdictional appeal was not pending when the Commissioner (Appeals) decided the assessee's appeal. The challenge therefore failed on facts. The objection was also found untenable in law in view of the principle that an adjudication does not become without jurisdiction merely because it is contrary to a Board circular.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional objection was rejected and the Revenue's appeals failed on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/99-C.E. could be denied for the subsequent period after it had been allowed for the earlier period.

Analysis: The earlier appellate order granting SSI relief for the first period was affirmed. On the same factual matrix, the benefit could not be denied for the subsequent period. The conclusion was also supported by the Larger Bench view that duty-paid clearances made before opting for SSI benefit are includible in the aggregate value of clearances for the notification.

Conclusion: The denial of SSI exemption for the subsequent period was unsustainable and the assessee's appeal succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's appeals were dismissed and the assessee obtained relief on the SSI exemption dispute for the later period.

Ratio Decidendi: A jurisdictional objection to adjudication fails where it is not pending at the time of the appellate decision and is otherwise unsupported in law, and SSI exemption cannot be denied for a later period when the same entitlement has already been upheld on the same factual basis.

---