2005 (11) TMI 351 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to order confirming demand of duty and interest.
2. Interpretation of exemption notification regarding aggregate value of clearances.
3. Application of conditions (v) and (vi) of the notification.
4. Determination of eligibility for exemption based on factory transfers.
5. Consideration of simultaneous clearances by one manufacturer from multiple factories.

Analysis:
1. The appellant contested an order confirming duty demand and interest, based on a show cause notice issued regarding availing exemption under Notification No. 8/01-C.E. The notice alleged that clearances made by the previous manufacturer were to be added to the appellant's clearances for exemption calculation purposes.

2. The dispute centered on the interpretation of conditions (v) and (vi) of the notification. The appellant argued that clause (v) was more applicable, allowing combining clearances from two factories for exemption. The department, however, supported invoking clause (vi) to attribute clearances by both manufacturers to the appellant.

3. The Tribunal analyzed clauses (v) and (vi) of the notification. It noted that clause (vi) applied when specified goods were cleared by one or more manufacturers from a factory, while clause (v) dealt with clearances by one manufacturer from multiple factories. The case involved the appellant having two factories after a transfer, making it fall under clause (v) for exemption calculation.

4. The Tribunal considered the eligibility for exemption under the notification, emphasizing the genuine transfer of the factory between the appellant and the previous manufacturer. It held that the appellant could combine clearances from both factories to determine exemption eligibility, as per clause (v) of the notification.

5. Given the situation of one manufacturer with two factories and clearances made during the financial year, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was entitled to aggregate value of first clearances from both factories within the exemption limit. As the appellant's case aligned with clause (v) of the notification, similar treatment as given to the previous manufacturer was warranted, leading to setting aside of the impugned orders and allowing the appeal.