TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (2) TMI 88
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds cleared by it. 2.The appellant is manufacturing nine different electrical goods. In their classification declaration effective from 1-4-99 they opted for the benefit of Notification No. 8/99 in respect of four different goods and in relation to remaining five goods they preferred to pay duty at Tariff rate and availed Modvat credit of duty paid on inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of said five items. The Commissioner (Appeals) took the view that the appellant being SSI unit had to opt Notification No. 8/99 for exemption under value based clearance of all their final products as per Para (i) of the notification or pay normal rate of duty on all goods cleared by them as per Para (ii) and avail of Modvat in respect of all ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ith clause 119, clause 121 and clause 134 of the Finance Bill, 1999, which clauses have, by virtue of the declaration made in the said Finance Bill under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931 (16 of 1931), the force of law, the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts clearances, specified in column (2) of the Table below, (hereinafter referred to as the said Table) for home consumption, of excisable goods of the description specified in the Annexure appended to this notification (hereinafter referred to as the specified goods), from so much of the aggregate of - (a) the duty of excise specified thereon in the First Schedule ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p; Faridabad Tools Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE - 1993 (63) E.L.T. 759 (T) Affirmed by Supreme Court in 1996 (82) E.L.T. A149 (3) Jallo Subsidiary Industries Company (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, N. Delhi - 1998 (26) RLT 556 (CEGAT) (4) Kamrup Industrial Gases Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai-II - 2000 (117) E.L.T. 734 (5) Jaina Detergent (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Allahabad - 1999 (113) E.L.T. 613. (6) CCE, Nagpur v. Vidharbha Beverages - Final Order No. 857/98-B Affirmed by Supreme Court in 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....594 considering earlier Notifications using similar language the view taken is that it is not mandatory for the assessee to exercise option in respect of all the goods cleared by it. 6.In Notification No. 175/86 exemption was granted in respect of specified goods. In the case of first clearances of specified goods up to an aggregate value not exceeding rupees thirty lakhs - (i) in a case where manufacturer avails of the credit of the duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of specified goods cleared for home consumption under Rule 57A of the said Rules, from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon which is specified in the said Schedule (read with any relevant notification iss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sideration was whether the assessee was entitled to benefit of Notification No. 175/86 even after it had opted for Modvat in respect of one of their final products. Following Faridabad Tools, the Tribunal again held in favour of the assessee. 8.In Kamrup Industrial Gases Ltd., the Tribunal was considering the provisions contained under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. The appellants therein were manufacturing three products and they were availing the benefit of exemption Notification No. 1/93 during the year 1994-95. The Tribunal held that for the subsequent year it was open for the assessee to pay duty on one of the items to take Modvat credit of duty in respect of that item and continue to claim exemption for the remaining two items. The rel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Supreme Court and that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has after condoning the delay in filing the appeal admitted the same. But we are also informed that there is no stay of operation of the Tribunal's order granted by the Supreme Court. 10.On detailed examination of the provisions contained in Notifications Nos. 8/99 and 9/99, we do not find much difference in the language from Notification No. 176/85 which came up for consideration in a series of decisions of this Tribunal from Swaraj Paint Industries onwards. We are also not able to make a distinction from Notification No. 1/93 on the basis of the language used in that Notification. The only difference is that during the relevant period there are two Notifications 8/99, which takes int....