2000 (3) TMI 128 - AT - Central Excise

Appellants Denied Concessional Duty Rate for Exceeding Quantity Limit under Notification No. 138/86

The Tribunal held that the appellants were not entitled to the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 138/86 from the date of opting for it, as ... Paper - First clearances Issues involved:1. Whether the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 138/86 is available to the appellants from the date of opting for the Notification.Comprehensive analysis:1. The appeal filed by M/s. Central Pulp Mills Ltd. raised the issue of whether they are entitled to the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 138/86 from the date of opting for the Notification. The appellants claimed exemption under this notification for uncoated craft paper in rolls manufactured from pulp containing not less than 50% by weight of conventional raw material. The Assistant Collector demanded a differential duty, stating that since the appellants had already cleared more than 3000 tons of paper before opting for the notification, they should be charged at a higher rate. The Collector (Appeals) upheld this decision. The appellants argued that their clearances for the slab rate should start from the date they began availing of the notification, which was 3-10-1989. They cited precedents such as Solar Packaging Pvt. Ltd. and ESS ESS Engineers to support their claim that the first clearance for the purpose of the notification should begin from the date of opting for it.2. The Department's representative contended that the appellants had already exceeded the quantity limit specified in the first slab of the notification (3000 tons) by clearing paper under Notification No. 139/86 from 1-4-89. It was argued that the notification refers to 'first clearance,' which had already been surpassed by the appellants. The representative distinguished cases involving multiple excisable goods, such as ESS ESS Engineers and Solar Packaging, from the present matter, where only one excisable good was involved. Precedents like B.K. Rubber Industries (P) Ltd and Ramakrishna Engg. Works were cited to support this argument.3. Upon considering the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal noted that the appellants had indeed cleared more than 3000 tons of paper before opting for Notification No. 138/86. The notification provides a concessional rate of duty, but the appellants had already exceeded the quantity limit specified in the first slab of the notification. Therefore, the Tribunal found that the appellants were not eligible for the concessional rate of duty under the notification from the date of opting for it, as they had already cleared paper exceeding the specified limit.