1999 (3) TMI 301 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of Notification 24/91 and eligibility for its benefits.

In this case, the main issue revolves around the interpretation of Notification No. 24/91 and whether the appellant was entitled to its benefits. The appellant initially availed the benefit of Notification No. 1/93 but later sought to switch to Notification No. 24/91. However, the latter notification prohibits its benefits if the appellant had already availed of Notification No. 175/86 or 1/93. The Collector (Appeals) rejected the appellant's petition based on this ground, which the Tribunal found justified. The appellant argued that they fulfilled the conditions of Notification No. 24/91 and had not simultaneously availed benefits under both notifications. They contended that since they only switched to Notification No. 24/91 after utilizing Notification No. 1/93 for clearances up to a certain amount, they should not be barred from claiming benefits. The Tribunal considered these submissions alongside the specific provisions of Notification No. 24/91, which required certification of factory capacity and imposed restrictions on annual production volumes for eligibility. The Tribunal noted that when two notifications covering similar circumstances are in force simultaneously, and one restricts availing benefits if the other is already utilized, it implies the government offers a choice to the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Collector (Appeals)'s decision, concluding that the appellant was not entitled to the benefits under Notification No. 24/91 due to their prior utilization of Notification No. 1/93, thereby dismissing the appeal.