2008 (7) TMI 668 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the interpretation of Notification No. 9/2000, clubbing of clearances from different units for duty liability, and the applicability of exemptions under the said notification.

Interpretation of Notification No. 9/2000:
The respondent was engaged in manufacturing products falling under specific Chapter Headings and was issued a show cause notice for alleged contravention of certain provisions. The adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings, which the Revenue appealed. The Revenue argued that the Goa unit's clearance value should be considered for duty liability under Notification No. 9/2000. On the other hand, the respondent contended that clearances from the rural area Goa unit, whether branded or unbranded, were exempt under the notification. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the respondent's position, stating that clearances of specified goods from both units needed to be aggregated for duty liability when exceeding the exemption threshold.

Clubbing of Clearances for Duty Liability:
The Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that for eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 9/2000, the value of clearances of specified goods from both units must be aggregated. The order clarified that both units would be liable to discharge duties at normal rates once the aggregate value exceeded the exemption threshold. The separate regulation of modvat credit by the Mumbai and Goa units, if availed, was also emphasized in accordance with the Modvat/Cenvat Rules.

Applicability of Exemptions under Notification No. 9/2000:
The respondent claimed exemption under Notification No. 9/2000, which excluded clearances exempt from excise duty for determining the aggregate value of clearances. The Tribunal noted that the Mumbai unit, despite not declaring the Goa unit, could not be denied the exemption benefit as the Goa unit had availed the exemption for goods manufactured in the rural area. As the factual position was undisputed, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, rejecting the Revenue's appeals and disposing of the respondent's cross-objection.