1995 (2) TMI 175 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal grants excise duty concession to tractor parts manufacturer

SUMERU & SEHRI Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a manufacturer of tractor parts, regarding excise duty concessions eligibility under Notification No. ... Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit Issues:1. Interpretation of Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 for excise duty concession eligibility.2. Determination of eligibility for benefit based on small scale industry unit classification.3. Assessment of the extended period of limitation in the case.4. Consideration of the validity of the SSI certificate and its impact on excise duty concessions.Analysis:1. The appellant, a manufacturer of tractor parts, contested the Collector's order invoking the proviso to Section 11A for the period from November 1986 to 31-3-1990. The appellant claimed benefits under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986, citing compliance with the classification list and plant machinery value below Rs. 45 lakhs. The appellant argued against the extended limitation period, emphasizing transparency in declarations and previous Tribunal interventions.2. The Tribunal reviewed the SSI certificate validating the appellant as a small scale industry unit since 19-2-1980, revalidated on 6-6-1985. The certificate highlighted that excise duty concessions are not tied to investment ceilings, extending benefits to ancillary units with valid SSI registration. The Tribunal examined the classification list entries referencing the notification and the machinery cost, aligning with the appellant's claims for eligibility under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986.3. Referring to previous Tribunal orders and legal precedents, including the Collector of Central Excise v. Chemphar Drugs & Liniments case, the Tribunal reiterated the appellant's prima facie eligibility for excise duty concessions under the notification. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of distinction between small scale ancillary units and small scale industries under the notification's purview, supporting the appellant's entitlement to benefits.4. Considering the Tribunal's detailed analysis and alignment with previous judicial interpretations, including the Uptron Powertronics v. Collector of Central Excise and Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. Collector of Central Excise cases, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant had a strong case on merits and limitation. Consequently, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit of duty and penalty amounts, preventing revenue recovery actions during the appeal's pendency. The stay application was allowed based on the appellant's demonstrated compliance with the notification criteria and the absence of undue hardship in depositing the amounts specified.