2019 (2) TMI 1226 - AT - Central Excise

SSI exemption - Benefit of N/N. 01/93-CE dated 01.03.21993 denied - manufacture of Rolled Products from the ship breaking materials - Exemption denied by the department on the ground that for the earlier period, though the appellant was claimed Exemption N/N. 202/1988-CE from the whole of the duty which is not eligible to them, therefore, the value of the clearance on which N/N. 202/1988-CE was claimed should be taken for the purpose of eligibility thresh hold limit of 2 Crore in the preceding financial year. Held that - For the purpose of availment of the exemption notification, the condition prescribed is that in the preceding financial year, the total aggregate value should not exceed ₹ 2 Crore. The department considered the turnover of the preceding financial year as other then exempted for the reason that N/N. 202/1988-CE is not eligible to the appellant. Since the issue of N/N. 202/1988-CE is not yet decided in the appellant case as the SCN are still pending, therefore, the present case cannot be decided at this stage. The matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for passing afresh order only after the outcome of the SCN issued for denial of Exemption N/N. 202/1988-CE. - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Eligibility of Exemption Notification No. 01/93-CE based on turnover calculation and pending SCNs related to Notification No. 202/1988-CE.

Eligibility of Exemption Notification No. 01/93-CE:
The case involved the appellant engaged in manufacturing 'Rolled Products' from ship breaking materials and claiming Exemption Notification No. 01/93-CE from March 1994. The department denied the exemption, citing that the appellant had earlier claimed Exemption Notification No. 202/1988-CE, which was deemed ineligible, impacting the eligibility threshold of 2 Crore in the preceding financial year. The appellant argued that the issue of Notification No. 202/1988-CE was pending, making the decision premature. The Tribunal noted that for availing the exemption, the total aggregate value in the preceding financial year should not exceed ?2 Crore. Since the issue of Notification No. 202/1988-CE was unresolved due to pending SCNs, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision post the outcome of the pending SCNs.

Pending SCNs related to Notification No. 202/1988-CE:
The appellant's counsel highlighted that SCNs related to the eligibility of Notification No. 202/1988-CE were pending, emphasizing that deciding the case prematurely was inappropriate. The Tribunal acknowledged the pending nature of these SCNs and concluded that the resolution of the Notification No. 202/1988-CE issue was crucial for determining the eligibility of the appellant for Exemption Notification No. 01/93-CE. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed a fresh decision by the adjudicating authority post the resolution of the pending SCNs concerning Notification No. 202/1988-CE.