1997 (8) TMI 283 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 88/77-C.E. regarding exemption for manufacturing footwear.
2. Burden of proof on the assessee to establish eligibility for the notification.
3. Examination of evidence and documents to determine the number of workers employed in the factory.
4. Validity of the Additional Collector's decision based on documentary evidence.
5. Adjudication of the appeal by the Tribunal.

Analysis:

1. The appeal involved the interpretation of Notification No. 88/77-C.E., which exempted the manufacturing of footwear. The Preventive Officer visited the factory and raised concerns about the number of workers and power usage, leading to a show cause notice. The Tribunal referred to a Bombay High Court judgment to determine eligibility for the concession based on the number of workers in the Boot Section of the factory.

2. The Senior Departmental Representative argued that the burden of proof was on the assessee to demonstrate eligibility for the notification by showing that the number of workers was less than 49. The Department claimed that the records were destroyed in a fire, but the Consultant contended that the department had seized documents, including attendance registers, which could have been scrutinized to verify the claim.

3. The Tribunal considered the submissions from both sides and noted that the claim regarding eligibility should have been raised earlier in the proceedings. The Department's argument of guesswork was countered by the existence of attendance registers attached to the seizure panchnama, which detailed the number of workers in different sections of the factory. The Tribunal found no fault in the Additional Collector's decision, which was based on documentary evidence and submissions made during the proceedings.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the lower order and dismissed the appeal from the Revenue, indicating that the decision was supported by a thorough examination of the evidence and documents available. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Additional Collector's findings and concluded that the appeal lacked merit based on the observations and analysis presented during the proceedings.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the interpretation of the notification, the burden of proof on the assessee, the examination of documentary evidence to determine the number of workers, and the validity of the Additional Collector's decision. The Tribunal's detailed analysis and consideration of the evidence led to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.