1997 (2) TMI 328 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Claim of benefit under Notification 36/87-C.E. as amended by Notification 36/88 for lower excise duty rate based on annual licensed capacity certification by authorities mentioned in the notification.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Benefit of Notification 36/87-C.E. and 36/88
The case involved the denial of the benefit of Notification 36/87-C.E. as amended by Notification 36/88 by the original authority. The notification prescribed a lower rate of duty if cement production met certain criteria, including certification of annual licensed capacity by specified authorities. The original authority disallowed the benefit due to certification of installed capacity instead of licensed capacity by the Additional Director of Industries. On appeal, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) ruled in favor of the respondents, stating that for small-scale units, only installed capacity needed certification as they were not required to be licensed. The lower appellate authority extended the benefit based on this clarification, allowing the appeals.

Issue 2: Certification of Capacity
The Appellate Tribunal observed that the Additional Director of Industries had certified the installed capacity as the licensed capacity for the small-scale industries involved in the case. The respondents had exceeded 30% of the certified annual installed capacity, meeting the criteria of the notification. The tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing that the certification by the Additional Director of Industries and the clarification by the Development Commissioner of Cement Industries supported the respondents' position. The Board subsequently clarified that annual installed capacity certificates from prescribed authorities could be accepted for excise duty exemption eligibility, confirming the tribunal's decision.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority's decision to grant the benefit of the notification to the respondents based on the certification of installed capacity for small-scale industries. The tribunal emphasized the validity of the certification by the Additional Director of Industries and the clarification provided by the Development Commissioner of Cement Industries. The Board's subsequent clarification further supported the tribunal's decision, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal.