2004 (3) TMI 536 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility of availing SSI Exemption for certain goods and paying duty at Tariff rate for others.
2. Validity of the option-cum-classification declaration under SSI Exemption Notification.
3. Authority of the Additional Commissioner to pass Adjudication Order.
4. Consideration of the value of clearances for home consumption.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in the appeals was whether the appellant, M/s. Kinjal Electricals Pvt. Ltd., could avail of the Small Scale Industry (SSI) Exemption for specific goods while paying duty at the normal tariff rate for other goods manufactured by them. The appellant had submitted an option-cum-classification declaration under the SSI Exemption Notification, which was accepted by the Assistant Commissioner. The appellant contended that the decision was not reviewed or appealed against by the Commissioner, and they had submitted similar declarations in subsequent years. The Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to exercise the option not to avail of the exemption for certain products while claiming the benefit for others, as decided by the Larger Bench in their own matters.

2. The appellant argued that the Additional Commissioner was not empowered to pass an Adjudication Order as their earlier declaration had not been reviewed. However, the Tribunal found that the Revenue had the right to issue a show cause notice for any non-levy or short-levy of duty under the Central Excise Act. The mere acceptance of one declaration by the Department did not prevent them from raising demands for subsequent periods or other declarations. The Tribunal held that the Additional Commissioner had the authority to adjudicate the matters for the subsequent period and under a new notification issued in 2000.

3. The issue of considering the value of clearances for home consumption was raised by the learned SDR. It was argued that as the appellant was allowed to pay Central Excise duty on certain goods, the value of clearances of such specified goods should be taken into account for determining the aggregate value of clearances for home consumption. The Tribunal agreed with this contention and held that the value of goods cleared by the appellant on payment of duty should be considered for this purpose under the relevant notifications.

4. In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of all appeals by holding that the appellant was eligible to avail of the exemption for some products while not claiming the benefit for others. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Larger Bench and clarified that the Revenue could issue show cause notices for subsequent periods or other declarations, even if an earlier declaration had been accepted. The value of goods cleared on payment of duty was deemed relevant for determining the aggregate value of clearances for home consumption.