2002 (1) TMI 682 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against small scale sector exemption benefit under Notification No. 175/86 for the period 1990 to 1992 based on provisional registration from State Government authorities.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by Revenue against the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) granting the small scale sector exemption benefit under Notification No. 175/86 for the period 1990 to 1992. The benefit was provided after considering instructions issued, leading to Trade Notice No. 26/87, dated 28-4-87, which allowed duty concession for units provisionally registered with State Government authorities. The Trade Notice specified that after obtaining provisional registration from State Government authorities, units could be accepted for duty concession upon proper verification.

The Revenue argued that Trade Notice No. 33/92, dated 13-7-92, clarified the need for assessments to be kept provisional and confirmed within a year. Failure to produce confirmed registration certificates within the specified time could result in denial of benefits. However, the respondent's location outside Maharashtra made the clarification inapplicable to them.

The Company Secretary for the respondents contended that no provisional assessment was ordered for the disputed period in 1992, and subsequent assessments were provisional. The clarification was deemed applicable only to Maharashtra, with no consultation with the Government of Gujarat or relevant trade notices issued by the Commissioners of Surat or Vadodara.

The respondents relied on various judgments, including Danavi Fibre Glass Products Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Kohinoor Plastics v. CCE, Nirmal Rubber & Engineering Works v. CCE, and Srimathi P.V. Nitha v. CCE, to support their argument that units remained eligible for the small scale exemption even after the expiry of provisional registration certificates.

The Tribunal found that when trade notices are issued based on Board instructions, the benefit of the small scale sector notification cannot be denied, especially when no further clarifications were issued during the relevant period. Relying on the case law cited by the respondents, the Tribunal concluded that the Revenue's appeal lacked merit, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.