1994 (12) TMI 144 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of para 4 of Notification No. 175/86 for eligibility to exemption, requirement of registration with Director of Industries, applicability of exemption under various notifications, impact of total clearances on eligibility.

Detailed Analysis:

The appeal challenged an order by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay imposing duty and penalty on the appellants for ribbon-filled cassettes manufactured between April 1991 to November 1991. The issue revolved around the appellants' failure to file necessary declarations or register with the Director of Industries as per Notification No. 175/86, leading to the impugned order.

The appellants argued that their total clearances for the previous and current years combined were well below the threshold specified in the proviso to para 4 of Notification No. 175/86. They contended that registration with the Director of Industries was a prerequisite for availing the notification's benefit, citing a Tribunal ruling in Tufail Ahmed's case (1992 (62) E.L.T. 745) to support their stance.

The Respondent, through the Ld. SDR, expressed no objection to disposing of the appeal, emphasizing the issue's core regarding the interpretation of para 4 of Notification No. 175/86.

The Tribunal granted a waiver of pre-deposit and proceeded with the appeal. The central issue was whether the appellants qualified for the Notification's benefit despite lacking registration with the Director of Industries. The Tribunal analyzed para 4 of the Notification, focusing on the total clearances criterion and the exemption under various specified notifications.

Considering the appellants' clearances were below the prescribed limit, the Tribunal held that they were eligible for the Notification's benefit even without registration with the Director of Industries. The Tribunal referenced the Tufail Ahmed case and emphasized the distinction between exemption from licensing control and duty payment, supporting its decision with legal precedents.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants met the criteria for availing the benefits under Notification No. 175/86 and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellants.