2004 (2) TMI 491 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 22/94 and its amendment dated 16th March, 1995.
2. Whether an assessee can avail benefits under both Notification No. 1/93 and Notification No. 22/94 simultaneously during the same financial year.

Issue 1: Interpretation of Notification No. 22/94 and its amendment dated 16th March, 1995:
The case involved the interpretation of Notification No. 22/94 and its subsequent amendment dated 16th March, 1995, which specified that the benefit of this notification was not available to an assessee availing of Notification No. 1/93. The amendment clearly stated that an assessee could not simultaneously avail benefits under both notifications during the same financial year. The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's contention that the assessee had to choose which notification to benefit from for the entire financial year, as the benefits under both notifications were not available concurrently. The Tribunal held that the amendment prohibited the assessee from selecting one notification for part of the year and another for the remaining part, making the choice between the notifications mutually exclusive.

Issue 2: Whether an assessee can avail benefits under both Notification No. 1/93 and Notification No. 22/94 simultaneously during the same financial year:
The respondent-assessee argued that they had the right to choose from multiple concessional notifications, citing previous Tribunal decisions supporting the view that when two exemption notifications are simultaneously available, the assessee can choose any one that is beneficial. However, the Tribunal differentiated the present case, emphasizing that the amendment to Notification No. 22/94 clearly restricted simultaneous availment of benefits under both Notification No. 1/93 and Notification No. 22/94 during the same financial year. The Tribunal concluded that the orders of the lower authorities, which favored the assessee's simultaneous availment argument, were erroneous. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal and confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 44,256/- on the respondent-assessee.

This judgment clarifies that when specific amendments to notifications restrict the simultaneous availment of benefits under different schemes, the assessee must adhere to the restrictions imposed. The case highlights the importance of careful consideration of the wording and implications of notifications to determine the eligibility and extent of benefits available to the assessee.