1997 (1) TMI 87 - SC - Central Excise

Appeal to Supreme Court - Compounded levy - Number of workers - SSI exemption - Rectification of mistake

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Rule 96-YYY regarding the employment of workers for rebate eligibility.
2. Error in Tribunal's judgment regarding the years for which benefit was granted.
3. Correction of the Tribunal's judgment for the year 1978-79.
4. Benefit denial under Notification No. 80/80-C.E. for the year 1980-81.

Analysis:
1. The judgment primarily deals with the interpretation of Rule 96-YYY concerning the employment of workers for rebate eligibility. The appellant argued that casual presence of an extra workman on certain dates should not lead to the denial of the rebate benefit. However, the Additional Solicitor General pointed out evidence indicating regular engagement of more than five workers, including workers from another factory managed by the appellant's wife. The court found this to be a question of fact and upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the evidence did not support the appellant's claim.

2. An error was identified in the Tribunal's judgment regarding the years for which benefit was granted. The appellant's counsel highlighted that the Tribunal mistakenly mentioned the years 1978-79 and 1979-80 instead of 1979-80 and 1980-81. The Supreme Court corrected this error and clarified that the benefit granted for the year 1978-79 was not part of the appeal. The judgment needed modification to rectify this mistake.

3. The case also addressed the correction of the Tribunal's judgment specifically for the year 1978-79. The Collector had granted the benefit for that year, and the Revenue appealed to the Tribunal. Due to the error in the Tribunal's judgment, the appellant filed an appeal, which was allowed by the Supreme Court. The matter was remanded back to the Tribunal for reconsideration based on the corrected information.

4. Lastly, the appellant raised a grievance regarding the denial of the benefit under Notification No. 80/80-C.E. for the year 1980-81. The appellant claimed entitlement to rebate on the sum exceeding five lakhs under the said Notification but was denied for the next ten lakhs. The court agreed that this aspect needed further examination by the Tribunal, and the appeal for the year 1980-81 was allowed for this specific purpose. The court directed the Tribunal to determine the eligibility for the benefit under clause (b) of the Notification.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal for the assessment year 1980-81 to address the benefit denial under Notification No. 80/80-C.E. The court corrected errors in the Tribunal's judgment regarding the years for which benefit was granted and remanded the matter back for reconsideration. The judgment emphasized the importance of factual evidence in determining eligibility for rebate benefits and highlighted the need for accurate record-keeping in such cases.