TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (1) TMI 153
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it of exemption in terms of Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986, as amended. 3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of 'Block Board' and 'flush doors' falling under Central Excise Tariff Heading Nos. 44.08 and 44.10 respectively. The duty was demanded for the period 22-8-1988 to 26-9-1988 on the clearance of the goods falling under Heading No. 44.10 at nil rate of duty on the ground that since the party had availed and utilised the credit of Central Excise duty paid on inputs under Rule 57A with effect from 22-8-1988, they were required to pay the Central Excise duty at appropriate rate on both of their excisable goods, irrespective of the fact whether or not the exemption limit in respect of any of their products is c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5 lakhs limit for each category of goods and exceeding 15 lakhs on duty paid in respect of other specified item is not the criteria to deny the benefit with reference to the item falling under limit of Rs. 15 lakhs. He referred to the following decisions in support of his contention of Purushotham Goculdas Plywood Co. v. Collector of C.E. [1990 (47) E.L.T. 30] and Collector of Central Excise v. Royal Coffee Works [1991 (56) E.L.T. 430]. He said that apart from these two cases the very issue with reference to the availing modvat credit in respect of one item and claiming exemption in respect of other item is covered by the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Swaraj Paint Industries v. Collector of Central Excise [1991 (57) E.L.T. 594], ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the manufacture of the goods other than those exempted and accordingly matter was remanded. In the instant case it is clear that formaldehyde was common input with reference to both and declaration dated 2-8-1988 indicates that formaldehyde was shown as input with reference to finished goods under heading 4410.10 also. She said that an identical issue was dealt with by the Special Bench in the case of Kharia Cement Works v. Collector of Central Excise [1989 (42) E.L.T. 696] wherein it was held that full duty exempted on first clearance upto Rs. 15 lakhs is not available in respect of another factory of same manufacturer. On the same analogy the Department was justified in denying the exemption in respect of one item since Party was availin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt to an amount calculated at the rate of 10% ad valorem;. (ii) in any other case from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon: Provided that the aggregate value of clearance of the specified goods under sub-clause (ii) of this clause in respect of any one heading. No. of the said Schedule, shall not exceed rupees fifteen lakhs." There is no dispute that appellants as a manufacturer are covered by the said Notification No. 175/86 being a SSI Unit. But the dispute is in regard to the applicability of the provisions contained in sub-clause a(i) and a(ii) as set out above. According to sub-clause a(i) that where a manufacturer avails of the credit of duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of specified goods, he will not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion on the issue same has to be followed. We are not convinced with his arguments and on the other hand the decision of the Special Bench in the case of Kharia Cement Works was not taken note of by the Regional Bench as it was rightly, argued by the DR. In the case of Kharia Cement Works (Supra) it was observed that 'This provision, that is, clause (a)(i) of para 1 of the notification does not, in our opinion, lend itself to the interpretation, as contended by the Counsel for the appellants, that it applies only to that factory of the manufacturer in which such credit availment takes place and not in the case of another factory of the same manufacturer where such credit availment does not take place. Sub-clause (ii) of the same provision, ....