9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 147 - AT - Central ExciseBenefit of N/N. 8/2001-CE - The case of the department is that appellant has availed SSI exemption under N/N. 9/2001, according to which they were discharging excise duty by applying 60% of normal rate of duty, hence benefit of N/N. 8/2001-CE will not be available - Held that - once the appellant has opted for N/N. 9/2001-CE for the first clearance up to ₹ 100 Lacs the option of the said notification cannot be withdrawn during the remaining part of the financial year, that means appellant for the entire financial year up to ₹ 100 Lacs required to pay duty at 60% of the normal rate of duty - all the clearances which are made up to clearance of ₹ 100 Lacs, appellant cannot opt for any other option. In the present case appellant s claim of N/N. 8/2001 CE in respect of job work goods is also within the first clearance of ₹ 100Lacs - the appellant was duty bound to comply with the condition and pay duty at 60% of the normal rate of duty therefore other N/N. 8/2001-CE is not available to the appellant. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues:
- Availment of SSI exemption under notification No.9/2001 and duty payment at 60% of normal rate of duty. - Manufacturing goods on job work basis and eligibility for exemption under Notification No.214/86-CE. - Entitlement to exemption under notification No.8/2001-CE in addition to notification No.9/2001-CE. - Interpretation of conditions and restrictions under the relevant notifications. - Applicability of case laws supporting the appellant's position. - Prohibition on availing multiple notifications simultaneously. Analysis: The case involved the appellant availing SSI exemption under notification No.9/2001 and discharging excise duty at 60% of the normal rate. The appellant also engaged in manufacturing goods on a job work basis, raising the question of eligibility for exemption under Notification No.214/86-CE. The appellant contended that they should be extended the benefit of notification No.8/2001-CE alongside No.9/2001-CE since they were not availing Cenvat credit for inputs used in manufacturing exempted goods. The appellant argued that there was no prohibition on availing multiple notifications simultaneously, citing various judgments in support of their position. The Revenue, on the other hand, emphasized that once the appellant opted for notification No.9/2001-CE, they could not withdraw this option within the same financial year. The Revenue asserted that the appellant could not avail both notifications simultaneously, referencing specific decisions supporting this stance. The Tribunal carefully considered both sides' submissions and examined the relevant records. Upon review, the Tribunal noted that under notification No.9/2001-CE, the appellant was entitled to concessional exemption for the first clearance up to a specified value, with duty payable at 60% of the normal rate. The condition of this notification explicitly stated that the option chosen by the manufacturer could not be withdrawn during the remaining part of the financial year once exercised. Therefore, the appellant was obligated to pay duty at the specified rate for the entire financial year up to the designated value. As the appellant's claim for exemption under notification No.8/2001-CE fell within the first clearance limit, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was bound to comply with the conditions of notification No.9/2001-CE and was not entitled to avail notification No.8/2001-CE concurrently. In light of these findings, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order confirming the demand for duty, dismissing the appeals made by the appellant. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to the conditions and restrictions specified in excise duty notifications and clarified that in this case, the appellant's entitlement to a specific exemption was limited by the conditions of another notification they had previously opted for. The judgment was pronounced in court on 30/10/17 by Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial), and Mr. Raju, Member (Technical).
|
