2003 (10) TMI 68 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Whether a small scale industry provisionally registered under State Government Authorities is eligible for duty exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1st March, 1986.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Eligibility for Duty Exemption
The petitioners, a private limited company engaged in manufacturing chemical products, applied for provisional registration as a small scale industry under the Industries (Development and Regulations) Act, 1951. They sought benefit under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1st March, 1986, based on their provisional registration. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise issued a show cause notice questioning the exemption due to the lack of a permanent registration certificate. The petitioners argued that the provisional registration sufficed as per the notification's requirements. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) ruled in favor of the petitioners, emphasizing the adequacy of provisional registration. However, the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) sided with the Revenue, upholding the denial of exemption. The petitioners contended that the circular clarifying the acceptance of provisional registration for duty concession under the notification was binding on the Revenue. The High Court noted that the petitioners produced the original permanent registration certificate during the proceedings, meeting the notification's conditions. Consequently, the High Court quashed the CEGAT's orders and upheld the petitioners' entitlement to the duty exemption.

Conclusion:
The High Court, after verifying the genuineness of the permanent registration certificate produced by the petitioners, determined that they had fulfilled the requirements of the exemption notification. As a result, the High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the CEGAT's orders and confirming the petitioners' right to claim the benefit of duty exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1st March, 1986. The rule was made absolute in favor of the petitioners with no order as to costs.