2005 (6) TMI 151 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Interpretation of exemption Notifications u/s 2/95-C.E. and 13/98-C.E. for 100% EOU Scheme; Whether benefit of both Notifications can be availed simultaneously.

In the judgment, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore considered Revenue appeals arising from OIA No. 8 & 9/2004-C.E. The Commissioner upheld the assessee's eligibility to avail the benefit of exemption Notification Nos. 02/95-C.E. and 13/98-C.E. simultaneously, as there was no specific bar in the Notifications. The assessees, operating under 100% EOU Scheme, were clearing fresh mushrooms to DTA after obtaining permission from the Development Commissioner, VEPZ. The Commissioner noted that finished goods were produced from raw materials in India to avail benefits under both Notifications. The Tribunal referred to previous rulings and Apex Court judgments to support the contention that two exemptions can be availed if not categorically barred. It was also noted that Rule 173Q is not applicable to 100% EOU for penalty imposition.

The Revenue contended that the Commissioner's order granting benefits under both Notifications was not justified, as the Notifications were mutually exclusive. However, after hearing arguments, the Tribunal observed that there was no provision barring the benefit of both Notifications. Rulings from the Tribunal and Supreme Court were cited to support the decision. The Tribunal referenced the Hindustan Lever Ltd. case, which held that when two exemption Notifications are issued separately, there is no bar to availing benefits from both. Consequently, the Tribunal found the Commissioner's order to be justified and legal, rejecting the appeals as the contentions raised were deemed academic and unsustainable.