TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (8) TMI 178
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s for the past more than 25 years; that these products were classifiable under Tariff Item 68 of the old Central Excise Tariff; that the goods manufactured by them were exempted from payment of duty under various exemption notifications, issued from time to time for the benefit of small-scale industry, particularly Notification No. 77/83 and Notification No. 77/85; that they complied with all the conditions necessary to avail of such benefit in any given year and in particular in the year immediately preceding the introduction of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; that in the year 1985-86, they were entitled to avail of the benefit under Notification No. 77/85; that a new Notification No. 175/86-Central Excise was issued on 1-3-1986 with ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re than Rs. 20 lakhs and the aggregate value of clearance of all excisable goods for home consumption during the preceding financial year had not exceeded Rs. 75 lakhs; that they satisfied all the conditions of Notification No. 77/85; that as such they were eligible for, and was availing, SSI exemption under Notification No. 77/85; that failure to file the declaration was only a procedural lapse because of which substantial benefit of Notification No. 77/85 cannot be denied. The learned Advocate relied upon the decision in the case of Vikram Laminators (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Aurangabad, 1995 (79) E.L.T. 147 (T) wherein it had been held as under : "Filing of declaration is not necessary to avail exemption in terms of Para 4(b) of the notificati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....utalia, learned SDR, submitted that the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 was available on the condition that the manufacturer was availing of the benefit of any of the Notification mentioned in proviso to Para 4 of the Notification No. 175/86-C.E.; that the appellants have not established that they were availing the benefit of Notification No. 77/85-C.E. during the preceding financial year; that the ratio of the decision in the case of Vikram Laminators is not applicable as the value of clearance in that decision in the preceding financial year was not disputed by the Department; that in the present matter the Department does not know about their eligibility to the benefit of Notification No. 77/85-C.E. which moreover has not been establi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Notification No. 175/86 which reads as under : "(b) in a case where a manufacturer has been availing of the exemption under this notification or any of the notifications specified below during the preceding financial year :- (i) 166/72-Central Excise, dated the 13th July, 1972 (ii) 39/73-Central Excise, dated the 1st March, 1973 (iii) 158/77-Central Excise, dated the 18th March, 1977 (iv) 74/78-Central Excise, dated the 1st March, 1978 (v) 70/81-Central Excise, dated the 25th March, 1981 (vi) &n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ication. It is not disputed by the Appellants that they had not claimed the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 77/85-C.E. at the relevant time by filing any classification list under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and as such the Department never had any opportunity to verify as to whether the appellants did satisfy the conditions stipulated in the said notification. Moreover, there was never any satisfaction of the Assistant Collector about the value of capital investment as was required under the notification at the relevant time. It has also not been disputed by the appellants that they had also not filed any declaration which again prevented the Department from verifying their compliance with the conditions subject....