2000 (4) TMI 273 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 1/93-C.E. regarding exemption claim.

Analysis:
The appeal in question raised the issue of whether M/s. Malhotra Metal Industries could claim the exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-1993, despite previously opting not to claim the exemption. The Appellant, represented by Shri J.S. Agrawal, Advocate, argued that they manufacture S.S. Circle out of stainless steel flats, clear the circles on payment of duty at a concessional rate under the said notification, and pay full duty on waste generated during the manufacturing process. The Advocate cited the principle that the assessee can choose the scheme most beneficial to them, referring to a previous case where the Tribunal allowed exemption under the same notification from a later date. However, the Respondent, represented by Shri Jagdish Singh, JDR, contended that a clause inserted in the notification from 1-4-1994 allowed manufacturers to opt out of the exemption and pay full duty on specified goods, as done by the Appellants for waste and scrap. The Respondent mentioned a recent Tribunal decision on a similar issue involving M/s. Uttam Industries.

The Tribunal, in its analysis, referred to the clause inserted in Notification No. 1/93 from 1-4-1994, which allowed manufacturers to opt out of the exemption and pay full duty on subsequent clearances of specified goods. Citing the decision in the case of Uttam Industries, the Tribunal emphasized that once an option is exercised not to avail the exemption, it applies to subsequent clearances in the same financial year. The Tribunal distinguished a previous case where exemption was allowed due to a change in eligibility criteria, stating that in the present case, the Appellants had chosen not to avail the exemption and could not change this option later. Consequently, the Tribunal held that since the Appellants had opted out of the exemption for waste and scrap, they were also liable to pay duty on S.S. Circles. Therefore, the appeal filed by M/s. Malhotra Metal Industries was rejected.