1999 (11) TMI 225 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal rules against Respondents' excise benefit claim due to threshold exceedance and non-registration.

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY Versus CHETNA ENGINEERING

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY Versus CHETNA ENGINEERING - 2000 (116) E.L.T. 91 (Tribunal) Issues:1. Availability of benefit under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. for excisable goods cleared during the financial year 1992-93.Analysis:The appeal filed by Revenue questioned the availability of the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. for excisable goods cleared by the respondents during the financial year 1992-93. The Asstt. Collector had approved the classification list claiming the benefit, but the appeal was rejected by the Collector (Appeals) based on the proviso inserted by Notification No. 55/92. The Collector held that the proviso would only affect manufacturers who had previously availed of the benefit under specific clauses. The Respondents argued that the appeal should be rejected as the impugned order was not deemed 'not legal or proper' as required under Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act. They contended that they were eligible for exemption under the Notification based on their past availing of SSI exemption. The Respondents also highlighted previous decisions supporting their stance. The Revenue, however, argued that the issue was settled by previous Tribunal decisions.The Tribunal considered both sides' submissions. It was noted that the authorization by the Collector to file the appeal was in accordance with Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act, as the Commissioner had issued the authorization. The Tribunal referred to previous cases to support the validity of the authorization process. Regarding the eligibility for the benefit under Notification No. 175/86, the Tribunal analyzed the second proviso to paragraph 4 of the Notification. The proviso stated that manufacturers exceeding a certain clearance value in preceding financial years and not registered as small scale units would not be eligible for the benefit. The Revenue argued that the Respondents were not registered as a small scale unit and their clearance value had exceeded the threshold in the preceding financial year. These facts were not rebutted by the Respondents. The Tribunal found that the Respondents were not eligible for the exemption based on the amendment introduced by Notification No. 55/92. The Tribunal aligned with the Revenue's position and allowed the appeal.In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Revenue, holding that the Respondents were not eligible for the benefit under Notification No. 175/86 for excisable goods cleared during the financial year 1992-93 due to the specific provisions and amendments outlined in the relevant notifications.