1989 (10) TMI 166 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Exemption of duty on synthetic resins and pigment pastes under Notification No. 80/80-C.E.
2. Inclusion of value of clearances of Solubilised Vats in computation of aggregate value of all excisable goods.
3. Interpretation of Explanation IV of Notification No. 80/80-C.E.
4. Applicability of Notification No. 106/82-C.E. on the exemption of goods.

Analysis:
1. The appellants claimed exemption of duty on synthetic resins and pigment pastes under Notification No. 80/80-C.E. for the year 1982-83. They cleared Solubilised Vats in 1981-82 without duty under a different notification. The lower authorities contended that the value of Solubilised Vats should be included in the aggregate value of clearances, denying the exemption. The appellants argued that since the Solubilised Vats were cleared under a separate notification, they should be excluded from the computation for the exemption.

2. The appellants deducted the value of Solubilised Vats cleared in 1981-82 from the total clearances for the purpose of claiming exemption. The Tribunal observed that under Explanation IV of Notification No. 80/80-C.E., clearances exempted by another notification should not be considered in the computation. By deducting the value of Solubilised Vats, the total clearances fell below the threshold for exemption, satisfying the conditions of the notification. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the value of Solubilised Vats should be included in the computation.

3. Explanation IV of the notification was crucial in determining the eligibility for exemption. The Tribunal emphasized that the value of goods exempted under a different notification should not be counted in the aggregate value of clearances. The Tribunal highlighted that the appellants met the conditions for exemption as the value of Solubilised Vats was rightfully deducted, ensuring compliance with the notification's requirements.

4. The Tribunal clarified that Notification No. 106/82-C.E., which removed synthetic dyes from the exemption list, did not have retrospective effect. Therefore, the dyes were considered specified goods during the preceding year, reinforcing the appellants' eligibility for exemption. The Tribunal overturned the lower authorities' decisions and allowed the appeals, granting consequential relief to the appellants.