1999 (9) TMI 985 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of Notification No. 175/86 for excise duty exemption based on factory registration change.
- Effect of change in partnership constitution on eligibility for excise duty exemption.
- Continuation of excise duty exemption for S.S.I. unit under new partnership.

Interpretation of Notification No. 175/86:
The case involved appeals against the Collector's order denying excise duty exemption under Notification No. 175/86. The appellant, M/s. Raja Valve Industries, argued that despite a change in partnership and factory name, the factory remained registered as an S.S.I. unit with the Director of Industries. The appellant contended that the change in the factory's name did not affect its S.S.I. status. The appellant relied on the definition of "factory" under the Central Excise Act and cited precedents supporting the continuity of excise duty benefits despite procedural delays in name changes on certificates.

Effect of Partnership Constitution Change:
The Department argued that the change in the factory's name should be treated as a new certificate issuance, disqualifying the appellant from excise duty exemption under the notification. It was highlighted that the factory had ceased operations for a period after a partner's retirement, and the Central Excise L-4 license was surrendered. The Department contended that the factory's constitution had effectively changed to a proprietary concern.

Continuation of Excise Duty Exemption:
After considering both arguments, the Tribunal found that the essential requirement of Notification No. 175/86 was factory registration as an S.S.I. unit, not the manufacturer's status. The Tribunal emphasized that once a factory is certified as an S.S.I. unit, the excise duty exemption should continue for the manufacturer operating in the same factory. Therefore, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the excise duty exemption under Notification No. 175/86 was applicable to M/s. Raja Valve Industries. Consequently, all three appeals were allowed based on this interpretation.