1993 (10) TMI 181 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the denial of benefit of Notification 175/86 dated 1-3-1986 for clearances in 1988-89. Eligibility for Small Scale Notification 85/85. Applicability of para 4(a) & (b) of Notification No. 175/86. Doctrine of pleading and absence of specific plea. Additional ground filed after a lapse of 3 years. Eligibility criteria for SSI Unit under Notification 175/86.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged the Collector of Central Excise's order denying the benefit of Notification 175/86 for clearances in 1988-89. The appellant contended that they were eligible for the benefit of Small Scale Notification 85/85 and had enjoyed it until August 31, 1987. The total value of their clearances from August 1987 to March 1988 was Rs. 5,77,241. The appellant argued that their case fell under para 4 proviso (a) & (b) of Notification No. 175/86. The appellant's counsel did not dispute the adjudicating authority's findings against them on merits. The counsel cited case laws to support the appellant's entitlement to the benefit of SSI Notification.

The Tribunal heard the submissions made by the appellant's counsel and the learned SDR. It was noted that the plea regarding the appellant's eligibility for the Notification in question had not been specifically taken before the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal emphasized the doctrine of pleading, stating that evidence cannot be considered without a specific plea. The Tribunal found that the plea now raised by the appellant could not be accepted without a detailed examination of facts related to clearances during various periods and eligibility under different notifications. The appeal was filed with a stay petition, which was disposed of earlier, and no additional ground had been taken for three years. The Tribunal highlighted that without a specific and detailed plea, it was not possible to investigate and analyze the factual details to determine the appellant's eligibility for various notifications.

Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, citing the absence of a specific plea regarding the appellant's eligibility for the benefit of the notifications in question. The Tribunal could not grant relief due to the lack of detailed pleading and evidence on record. The Tribunal acknowledged the counsel's arguments but reiterated the importance of specific pleas for the Department to consider and give findings on such matters. The appellant's plea regarding eligibility under Notification 175/86 was not supported by the necessary factual details and evidence, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.