2016 (6) TMI 15

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....elhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") claiming the following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether the benefit of deemed credit order no. TS-36/94-TRU dated 1.3.1994 continues to be admissible to SSI unit even after crossing the exemption limit slab of Rs. 75 lacs in terms of notification no. 1/93-CE dated 28.2.1993 as amended? (ii) Whether notification No. 1/93-CE dated 28.2.1993 and deemed credit order dated 1.3.1994 have been correctly interpreted by the Tribunal? 2. A few facts necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of goods falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and had been availing the exemption ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....order dated 27.5.2003 (Annexure P-5) rejected the appeal. Still dissatisfied, the department filed an appeal on 25.8.2003 (Annexure P-6) before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 1.3.2004 (Annexure P-7) allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 27.5.2003 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence, the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was entitled to avail the benefit of deemed credit of duty on the re-rollable material used as inputs in terms of the order dated 1.3.1994 of Government of India, Ministry of Finance even after crossing the exemption limit of Rs. 75 lacs, but the Tribunal has wrongly denied the claim of the appellant by mis-interpreting the noti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for the year in question, the petitioner was entitled to avail the benefit of the notification No.1/93-CE, dated 28.2.1993. It is also not denied that the total clearances of the petitioner-company for the relevant year exceeded Rs. 75 lacs. A show cause notice was issued to the applicant whereby the petitioner was denied the benefit of deemed credit after crossing the exemption of limit of Rs. 75 lacs. The Deputy Commissioner, Excise confirmed the demand in view of the trade notice referred to above. The petitioner filed an appeal and the Commissioner allowed the appeal relying upon the decision of the Appellate Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore v. Sri Venkateswara Steel Industries - 1996 (86) E.L.T. 446 (Trib....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n under the notification. In our considered view, the only interpretation which can be given is that the wording used in the notification identifies the category of manufacturers who are satisfying the criteria as set out in Notification No. 1/93-C.E. and are availing of the benefit of the said notification. The trade note limiting this benefit to those manufacturers whose clearances do not exceed Rs. 75 lacs is totally illegal and against the deemed credit order issued by the Ministry. We may also point out that though the department may be bound by its trade note, the industry is not bound by the same and has a right to challenge the same." 8. The Madras High Court in the case of Ganesh Steels v. CESTAT, Chennai 2013 (294) ELT 529 (Mad....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1/93-C.E., dated 28.2.1993 up to 24.12.1994 and thereafter started paying duty. Therefore, appellant cannot said to be not availing exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28.2.1993 during the year 1994-95. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise recorded factual finding that appellant satisfied the conditions viz., (i) the inputs were re-rollable materials of steels; (ii) the inputs were purchased from outside and were lying in stock; (iii) the appellant were re-rollers availing exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28.2.1993 and (iv) the process carried was heating and not melting and that the goods manufactured were classifiable under Chapter 72. When the Deputy Commissioner had recorded such factual finding that ....