2001 (8) TMI 166 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Whether the exemption under Sl. No. 69 of Notfn. No. 5/98-C.E. is available to Cellular articles and Household articles of plastics for clearances exceeding Rs. 85 lakhs during the financial year 1998-99.

Analysis:
The appeal dealt with the eligibility of exemption under Sl. No. 69 of Notfn. No. 5/98-C.E. for Cellular articles and Household articles of plastics. The respondents had short-paid duty on these goods during a specific period in the financial year 1998-99. The jurisdictional Dy. Commissioner confirmed the duty demand and imposed a penalty. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) ruled in favor of the assessee, citing a previous Tribunal decision. The Revenue appealed this decision.

Upon examination, it was noted that the Tribunal had previously decided a similar issue in favor of the assessee in a different case. The department had appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, which was pending. The Tribunal reviewed the previous decision in the case of M/s. N.M. Nagpal (P) Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi, where it was held that the concessional rate of duty applied to the assessee as they had not availed credit of duty on the specified products. The Tribunal interpreted condition No. 10 of the notification and granted the benefit of concessional duty to the assessee.

In the present case, the same issue arose, but with two products instead of one. The respondents had not availed credit of duty on either product or any other final products manufactured in the same factory. The Tribunal found that the respondents met the conditions required to avail the concessional rate of duty under Sl. No. 69. Despite the ambiguous language of condition No. 10, the benefit was deemed to favor the assessee. The Tribunal concluded that the issue was covered in favor of the respondent based on the previous decision, and therefore rejected the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision in favor of the assessee, stating that the issue was already settled in a previous case. The Cross Objections filed by the respondents were also disposed of accordingly.