Independent excise exemption not lost by non-use of simplified procedure; clearance limit kept Notification No. 158/71 available.

The second proviso to Notification No. 14/76-C.E. was read as a bar against double benefit only for assessees within the procedural scheme under Rule 173RA(2) and Rule 173RD. It could not be used to deny an independent exemption under Notification No. 158/71 where that earlier notification had not been availed or extended. As the manufacturer had not crossed the prescribed clearance limit for bolts and nuts in the relevant financial year, the exemption under Notification No. 158/71 remained available.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee, who had not availed the simplified procedure, could be denied the benefit of Notification No. 158/71 on the basis of the second proviso to Notification No. 14/76-C.E.

Analysis: The second proviso to Notification No. 14/76-C.E. was construed as intended to prevent double benefit to an assessee falling within the relevant procedural scheme under Rule 173RA(2) and Rule 173RD of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It was held that the proviso could not be read so as to deny the benefit of an independent exemption notification to a manufacturer to whom Notification No. 14/76-C.E. itself had not been extended or availed of. Since the respondent had not exceeded the prescribed clearance limit for bolts and nuts in the relevant financial year, the exemption under Notification No. 158/71 remained available.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 158/71, and the departmental challenge to the order of the Collector (Appeals) failed.

---