TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 430
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....med along with interest and equal amount of duty as penalty imposed in the Order-in-Original dated 12/07/2005. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the Appellant is a small scale manufacturer engaged in the manufacture of Generic Product, Branded Product and Ayurvedic Product falling under Sub-Heading No. 3003.20, 3003.10 and 3003.21 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The Appellant opted for the benefit of Notification 9 /2000 dated 01/03/2000, prescribing concessional rate of duty in respect of clearances made upto Rs.100lakhs. By virtue of this Notification, the Appellant is required to pay excise duty @ 60% of normal rate upto the first clearance value of Rs.50lakhs and thereafter @ 80% of normal rate till their value of clearanc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....during the Financial Year 2000- 01. Denying the exemption would amount to withdrawing the option exercised by them mid way in the Financial Year by the department. The value of clearances on payment of full duty without availing the benefit exemption notification 9/2000 cannot be included to compute the value of clearances upto Rs.100 lakhs. They cited the decision of the Larger bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kinjal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2004(165) ELT 300 and argued that this decision is in their favour and the department has wrongly interpreted this decision to demand duty from them. Accordingly, they prayed for setting aside the demands confirmed in the impugned order. 4. The Ld. D.R. reiterated the findings in the impu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the benefit of Notification 9/2000, such value of clearances have to be excluded to compute the value of clearances of 100 lakhs, as provided in Notification 9/2000. We observe that similar view has been expressed by the Larger bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kinjal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2004(165) ELT 300, while interpreting Notification 8/99, which is reproduced below: 11. We, therefore, hold that the appellant was entitled to exercise option not to avail exemption contained under Notification No. 8/99 in respect of five of its products while claiming the benefit in respect of four other items. The order impugned is, therefore, set aside and the appeal stands allowed. 8. As per the decision of the Larger bench cite....