2000 (9) TMI 100 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Benefit of Notification No. 23/89-C.E. availability for the period 1-5-1989 - 31-8-1989.

Analysis:
1. The respondents were involved in cement manufacturing and claimed concessional duty under Notification No. 23/89-C.E. for the period in question. The Assistant Collector initially demanded differential duty due to the absence of the licensed capacity certificate. The dispute arose when the Assistant Collector denied the benefit of the notification based on production capacity exceeding the prescribed limit of 200 TPD.

2. The main issue revolved around the interpretation of "licensed capacity" as per the notification. The Revenue argued that the actual production capacity exceeded the limit, disqualifying the respondents from the concessional duty. However, the Tribunal noted that the licensed capacity, as per the industrial license, remained at 200 TPD, and any higher capacity was not endorsed. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of strict interpretation of fiscal statutes and exemption notifications, citing relevant case law.

3. The Tribunal highlighted that the Assistant Collector erred in considering actual production capacity over licensed capacity. The Ministry's confirmation of the licensed capacity and absence of endorsement for higher capacity supported the respondents' eligibility for the concessional duty. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument and upheld the lower appellate authority's decision, emphasizing the significance of the term "licensed capacity" in the notification.

4. Drawing parallels from a Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal reiterated the limited jurisdiction of authorities in assessing compliance with licensing conditions. It emphasized that the focus should be on verifying the licensed capacity as per the industrial license. The Tribunal concluded that the respondents met the criteria for the concessional duty as their licensed capacity remained within the prescribed limit, thereby dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

5. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority's decision, confirming the respondents' eligibility for the concessional duty under Notification No. 23/89-C.E. for the specified period. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to the terms of the notification and industrial licensing regulations in determining duty benefits, ultimately rejecting the Revenue's appeal.