1988 (4) TMI 183 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility of manufacturer assessee for exemption under Notification No. 71/78-C.E.
2. Inclusion of exempted goods in determining aggregate value for exemption eligibility.
3. Computation of limitation period for demand raised.
4. Retrospective effect of Notification No. 141/79-C.E.

Eligibility for Exemption under Notification No. 71/78-C.E.:
The appeal concerns the manufacturer assessee's eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 71/78-C.E. and its amendment by Notification No. 141/79. The manufacturer, a small-scale producer of various goods, claimed exemption for specific items under different notifications. The key issue was whether the manufacturer met the conditions for exemption under the said notifications.

Inclusion of Exempted Goods in Aggregate Value Calculation:
A crucial point of contention was whether goods exempted under specific notifications should be included in calculating the aggregate value of clearances for determining eligibility for exemption. The manufacturer argued that exempted goods should not be considered, while the Revenue contended that even exempted goods remain excisable and should be included in the calculation.

Computation of Limitation Period for Demand:
Another issue was the computation of the limitation period for a demand raised by the authorities. The Collector (Appeals) allowed a shorter limitation of six months from a specific date, while the manufacturer argued for a different starting point. The disagreement centered on the date from which the limitation period should be calculated.

Retrospective Effect of Notification No. 141/79-C.E.:
The final issue revolved around the retrospective effect of Notification No. 141/79-C.E. The manufacturer claimed the benefit of this notification, arguing against its retrospective application. The question was whether the notification should be applied retrospectively based on the circumstances of the case.

The judgment analyzed various legal aspects, including conflicting judicial opinions on the excisability of goods after exemption, computation of limitation periods, and the interpretation of statutory provisions. The Tribunal held that exempted goods remain excisable for determining eligibility for exemption. It also ruled on the appropriate starting point for calculating the limitation period and rejected the argument against the retrospective effect of a specific notification. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed as the Tribunal found no merit in the manufacturer's contentions.