2018 (8) TMI 82 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal allows separate clearances for excise duty exemption

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that clearances exempted from excise duty at the Goa unit should not be combined with those of the ... SSI Exemption - N/N. 9/2001-CE dt. 1.3.2001 - clubbing of clearances - Rural area - branded goods - branded goods manufactured at Goa Unit, which is situated in Rural Area - Held that:- On the same issue for the earlier period, this Tribunal, in appellant own case COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-V VERSUS SHAKTI INDUSTRIES [2008 (7) TMI 668 - CESTAT, MUMBAI], after scrutiny of the facts and interpreting the Notification No. 9/2000 -CE dt. 1.3.2000 worded in similar line with Notification No. 9/2000-CE dt. 1.3.2000, observed that the appellants are eligible to benefit of Notification No. 9/2000-CE dt. 1.3.2000 and the value of clearance of their Goa unit cannot be added to the clearance value of Mumbai unit in computing the aggregate value of clearances under the said Notification - clearances cannot be clubbed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:- Interpretation of Notification No. 9/2000-CE dt. 1.3.2000- Clubbing of clearances from different manufacturing units- Eligibility for exemption benefits under the notificationInterpretation of Notification No. 9/2000-CE dt. 1.3.2000:The case involved an appeal against an order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-I, regarding the interpretation of Notification No. 9/2000-CE dt. 1.3.2000. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods, had availed SSI exemption under the mentioned notification during the financial year 2001-02. The Revenue issued a demand notice proposing to club the clearances of both the Mumbai and Goa units. The Tribunal analyzed the notification and held that clearances exempted from excise duty should be excluded from the calculation of aggregate clearances. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant, having availed the exemption at the Goa unit, should not be deprived of the benefit at the Mumbai unit. The judgment highlighted that the factual position of availing the exemption at the Goa unit was undisputed, thus rejecting the clubbing of clearances from both units for computing the aggregate value.Clubbing of Clearances from Different Manufacturing Units:The issue of clubbing the clearances from different manufacturing units, i.e., the Mumbai and Goa units, was a crucial aspect of the case. The appellant contended that the value of clearances at the Goa unit should not be combined with that of the Mumbai unit for the purpose of availing the exemption under Notification No. 9/2000-CE dt. 1.3.2000. The Tribunal, after scrutinizing the facts and interpreting the notification, observed that the clearances from the Goa unit, where the exemption was availed, should not be added to the clearance value of the Mumbai unit. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant's eligibility for the benefit of the notification should not be affected by the existence of multiple manufacturing units, especially when the exemption had been legitimately claimed at one of the units.Eligibility for Exemption Benefits under the Notification:The case revolved around the eligibility of the appellant for exemption benefits under Notification No. 9/2000-CE dt. 1.3.2000. The appellant had previously obtained a favorable judgment from the Tribunal on a similar issue for an earlier period. The appellant argued that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) did not consider the precedent set by the Tribunal in their earlier judgment. The Tribunal reiterated its previous stance that the appellant was indeed eligible for the benefit of the notification, and the value of clearances at the Goa unit should not be clubbed with those of the Mumbai unit. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of consistency in applying legal interpretations and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief, if any, as per law.