Appellant entitled to tax exemption during factory relocation, timely updating of registration certificate crucial.

The appellant was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. during the period of factory relocation. The appellant's factory had shifted locations, and despite the registration certificate displaying the original address, the appellant had applied for and received an updated certificate. The Tribunal held that the exemption benefit should not be denied due to factory relocation, emphasizing the timely update of the registration certificate. The appeal was allowed, recognizing the appellant's entitlement to the exemption benefit.

---

---

Issues:
1. Entitlement to benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. for the period of factory relocation.
2. Requirement of Central Excise license for exemption eligibility.
3. Validity of registration certificate after factory premises shift.

Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this appeal was whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. during the period when their factory relocated. The appellant's factory had shifted locations, and although the registration certificate still displayed the original address, the appellant had applied for a change of address and received the updated certificate in January 1990. The department denied the exemption benefit, citing the changed factory location not being covered in the original certificate. The Additional Collector confirmed the duty demand and imposed a penalty. The appellant argued that their clearances were within the exemption limit, and a change in the registration address was sufficient. Citing precedents, the appellant contended that the exemption should not be denied due to factory relocation.

2. The second issue revolved around the requirement of a Central Excise license for exemption eligibility. The Departmental Representative argued that the appellant exceeded the clearance value threshold and should have obtained a Central Excise license. However, the Tribunal clarified that while the absence of a license could constitute an offense, it did not impact the eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 175/86. The benefit of the notification was contingent upon fulfilling the specified conditions, and holding a Central Excise license was not a prerequisite.

3. The final issue addressed the validity of the registration certificate post-factory relocation. The department contended that the exemption was not applicable to a manufacturer with a registration certificate issued before the address change. However, the Tribunal held that the benefit of the notification was available to the manufacturer, irrespective of the address change. Citing relevant precedents, including Collector of Central Excise v. S.K. Engg. and Trading Company, the Tribunal emphasized that the appellant promptly updated the registration certificate with the new address, making the exemption availed by the appellant legitimate. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, recognizing the appellant's entitlement to the exemption benefit.

---