1999 (3) TMI 137 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Notification 22/82-C.E regarding the conditions for availing concessional rate of duty for matches production exceeding 15 million sticks in a calendar month during the financial year.

Analysis:
The case involved the respondents engaged in match manufacturing availing the benefit of Notification 22/82-C.E. The Assistant Collector issued a show cause notice for violating the conditions of the notification due to manufacturing over 15 million sticks in December 1989. The demand denying the notification benefit was confirmed, and the appeal against it was dismissed by the Collector (Appeals).

The respondents appealed to the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, which remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector to consider the legality of the duty demand beyond six months. The Assistant Collector confirmed the demand again, leading to another appeal by the respondents. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) partially allowed the appeal, stating that the demand should be for the six months preceding the show cause notice date as per Sections 11A(1) and 11A(3)(ii) of the Central Excise Act.

The Revenue's representative argued that the respondents were not eligible for the concessional rate of duty for the entire year as they exceeded the 15 million matches production limit in December 1989. Referring to a previous Tribunal decision, the representative urged that the appeal should be allowed.

The Tribunal found that as per Notification 22/82-C.E, if the monthly production limit specified was exceeded in a financial year, the concessional rate of duty would not apply for the whole year. Citing a previous decision, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision clarified the interpretation of Notification 22/82-C.E regarding the conditions for availing the concessional rate of duty when the production of matches exceeds 15 million sticks in a calendar month during the financial year. The decision emphasized that exceeding the monthly production limit in a financial year renders the concessional rate of duty inapplicable for the entire year, as per the notification's stipulations.