1995 (4) TMI 144 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Upholds Exemption Decision under Notification No. 88/77

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KANPUR Versus JANDIAL SHOE FACTORY

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KANPUR Versus JANDIAL SHOE FACTORY - 1995 (78) E.L.T. 144 (Tribunal) Issues:- Entitlement to exemption from payment of duty under Tariff Item 36 of CET in terms of Notification No. 88/77- Interpretation of conditions specified in Notification No. 88/77 for exemption eligibilityAnalysis:The case involved an appeal filed by the Department against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi, regarding the entitlement of the respondents to exemption from duty under Tariff Item 36 of CET in accordance with Notification No. 88/77. The dispute arose from a show cause notice issued to the respondents based on a report by Central Excise Officers who found that the respondents, engaged in manufacturing footwear, may not be eligible for the exemption due to the number of workers and power usage exceeding specified limits.The Department contended that the number of workers in the factory exceeded 49, and the power usage exceeded 2 H.P., which would disqualify the respondents from the exemption. The Department argued that the pasting machine installed by a contractor within the factory premises was being used by the respondents, further justifying the denial of exemption. However, the respondents claimed that they fulfilled the conditions specified in Notification 88/77, as the power used in manufacturing footwear did not exceed 1.75 H.P., as certified by the Executive Engineer of the State Electricity Board.Upon review, the Tribunal examined the provisions of Notification 88/77, emphasizing that compliance with either of the specified conditions was sufficient for exemption eligibility. The Tribunal noted that the machinery installed by the respondents was certified to be 1.75 H.P., and the pasting machine in question belonged to an independent contractor, not solely employed by the respondents. The Tribunal agreed with the lower authorities that the contractor provided job work to others, indicating that the machine was not exclusively used by the respondents for manufacturing footwear.Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the lower authorities to grant exemption to the respondents under Notification 88/77, as the respondents had fulfilled one of the specified conditions. The appeal filed by the Department was dismissed, affirming the entitlement of the respondents to exemption from duty under the mentioned notification.