1999 (4) TMI 215 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of amendments in Notifications 55/92 and 67/92 affecting the benefit under Notification 175/86.

Analysis:
The case involved the interpretation of amendments in Notifications 55/92 and 67/92 that impacted the benefit provided under Notification 175/86. The dispute arose when the Department claimed that the amendments disqualified the assessee from the notification's benefit for a specific period and demanded duty payment for that duration. The Assistant Collector initially ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the amendments did not disqualify them. The Collector (Appeals) upheld this decision due to the lack of evidence presented by the Department to challenge the Assistant Collector's order. The issue revolved around the eligibility criteria specified in the notifications and whether the amendments affected the assessee's entitlement to the benefit.

The crux of the matter lay in the amendments introduced by Notification 55/92, which altered the conditions for availing the benefit under Notification 175/86. The amendment removed the relaxation regarding registration as a small scale industry for manufacturers who had previously availed of the exemption under a specific clause. It was clarified that the benefit would not be available to manufacturers exceeding a certain clearance value if they had utilized the exemption under a particular clause in the past. However, if the manufacturer had availed of the benefit due to being registered as a small scale industry, the amendment did not disqualify them. The Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals) based their decisions on this distinction, emphasizing that the assessee continued to avail of the benefit under the relevant clause and was not affected by the amendments.

The Departmental representative argued that the intention behind the amendments was to restrict the benefit to registered small scale manufacturers only. Citing precedents, the representative contended that manufacturers not registered with the appropriate authority should not qualify for the benefit. However, the Tribunal differentiated the cited cases as they did not address the specific argument raised by the assessee in this case. The Tribunal referred to a relevant precedent where a similar situation was discussed, indicating that the ratio of that decision applied in the present scenario. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no grounds for interference and dismissed the appeal, maintaining the decision in favor of the assessee.