2012 (6) TMI 27 - AT - Central Excise

SSI Exemption - Simultaneous availment of benefit of Notification No.8/99-CE, dt.28.2.99 and Notification No.10/99-CE, dt.28.2.99, on the clearances of excisable goods i.e. air conditioning and Hi-Fi systems - Held that - The issue is squarely covered by the various decisions of this Tribunal and more specifically by this very Bench in the case of Dhanraj Industries Vs. CCE Vapi 2011 (4) TMI 397 (Tri) in favour of the appellants and therefore for calculating the first clearances which are exempt, there is no need to take clearances under another notification into consideration and the restriction in para 3 of Notification No. 10/99 is not applicable and the Notification No. 8/99 also has a similar condition - there is only one decision which is in favour of the Revenue which happens to be the earliest decision whereas there are many decisions on the issue which are in favour of the appellant which have taken the right view so not to consider it a fit case for referring the matter to the Larger Bench - in favour of the assessee

Summary

Issues:
Simultaneous availment of benefit of Notification No.8/99-CE and Notification No.10/99-CE on clearances of excisable goods during 1999-2000.

Analysis:
The tribunal considered the application for out-of-turn hearing of an appeal regarding the simultaneous availment of benefits under two notifications for excisable goods. The issue was whether the appellant could benefit from both Notification No.8/99-CE and Notification No.10/99-CE simultaneously. The Revenue contended that such simultaneous benefit was not permissible, leading to short payment of duty. The tribunal referred to a previous decision involving a similar issue and found that subsequent decisions favored the appellants. The tribunal noted that contradictory decisions did not warrant a reference to a Larger Bench as subsequent interpretations of the notifications were in favor of the appellant.

The tribunal referred to a case involving a different assessee where it was found that for calculating the first clearances exempted under the notifications, there was no need to consider clearances under another notification. The tribunal also discussed the conditions of both notifications and concluded that the subsequent decisions correctly interpreted the notifications, with only one decision favoring the Revenue. The tribunal decided that the issue was not fit for reference to a Larger Bench as multiple decisions supported the appellant's position. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the assessee.

In conclusion, the tribunal allowed the out-of-turn hearing of the appeal regarding the simultaneous availment of benefits under two notifications for excisable goods. The tribunal found that subsequent decisions favored the appellant's position, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeal in favor of the assessee.