2017 (7) TMI 939 - AT - Central Excise

N/N. 333/86-CE - denial on the ground that the appellants did not make such claim in terms of Rule 173B during the relevant timewhether or not the appellant can be extended with benefit of exemption N/N. 333/86-CE for the AR bricks found un-accounted and lying in stock? - Held that - the said exemption N/N. 333/1986- CE is without any condition - The exemption is granted to clay bricks manufactured in mechanized brick plants. As the appellants fulfill the requirements of the said notification, we find no reason for denial of the same. Apparently they had no occasion to claim such exemption earlier as they have claimed the general small scale exemption under N/N. 175/1986 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of exemption under notification No.333/86-CE for AR bricks.
2. Compliance with High Court directions.
3. Calculation of duty reduction based on exemption notification.
4. Claiming exemption under notification No.175/86 CE.
5. Applicability of exemption notification No.333/86-CE to unaccounted AR bricks.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the denial of exemption under notification No.333/86-CE for AR bricks by the original authority based on the ground that the appellants did not claim it during the relevant time in the year 1988. The Tribunal noted that the appellants had opted for exemption under notification No.175/1986-CE and had not claimed the exemption under No.333/86-CE earlier. However, as the exemption under No.333/86-CE had no conditions and the appellants fulfilled the requirements, the Tribunal found no reason for denial of the exemption.

2. The appellant argued that the Commissioner failed to comply with the directions of the High Court. The High Court had directed the original authority to re-examine the matter in the light of notification 11.06.1986. The Tribunal found that the High Court's direction was not properly followed by the original authority, leading to the incorrect denial of the exemption.

3. The appellant presented a calculation showing that on applying the exemption notification No.333/86-CE to AR bricks, the demand would be reduced significantly. The Tribunal considered this calculation and concluded that the duty liability, if any, over and above the exemption, should be discharged by the appellants.

4. The issue of claiming exemption under notification No.175/86 CE arose due to the Revenue's case regarding unaccounted stock of AR bricks. The Tribunal noted that the question of claiming exemption under No.333/1986-CE was mainly raised because of the Revenue's allegations regarding the unaccounted stock.

5. The Tribunal ultimately set aside the impugned order insofar as it related to the denial of the exemption under notification No.333/1986-CE to the appellants. It ruled that the appellants should be granted the exemption as they fulfilled the requirements of the notification, and any duty liability beyond the exemption should be discharged by them. The appeal was disposed of in favor of the appellants.

This detailed analysis highlights the key issues addressed in the judgment, including the denial of exemption, compliance with court directions, duty calculation based on exemptions, and the applicability of specific notifications to the case.