2000 (8) TMI 349 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Availability of benefit under Notification No. 175/86 for appellants.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the order-in-appeal upholding the denial of benefit under Notification No. 175/86 by the Collector (Appeals). The appellants claimed exemption under the said notification for specific products but were denied by the Assistant Collector and subsequently by the Collector (Appeals). The main contention was the exclusion of the value of branded goods supplied to a third party while computing the aggregate value of clearances for the preceding financial year. The appellants argued that this exclusion should have been allowed as per para 3 of Notification No. 175/86. However, the Collector (Appeals) rejected this plea based on the appellants' failure to disclose the manufacture of branded goods for a third party in their classification list and lack of evidence to support their claim.

The appellants further contended that they did manufacture branded goods for a third party during the preceding financial year and provided letters and documents to support their claim. However, these documents were not produced before the adjudicating authority initially, raising doubts about their authenticity. The Tribunal noted that the appellants themselves declared in their classification list that they did not manufacture branded goods, which contradicted their later claim. The Tribunal inferred that the documents provided were potentially created later to manipulate evidence for claiming the benefit of the notification and avoiding excise duty.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the impugned order of the Collector (Appeals) denying the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 was valid and legally sound. The appellants' failure to provide convincing and authenticated evidence regarding the manufacture of branded goods led to the rejection of their claim for exemption under the notification. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision of the Collector (Appeals) and the Assistant Collector.

In conclusion, the judgment centered on the interpretation and application of Notification No. 175/86 regarding the exclusion of the value of branded goods in computing aggregate clearances. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of accurate disclosures in classification lists and the necessity of providing credible evidence to support claims for exemption under excise notifications. The decision highlighted the significance of transparency and consistency in declarations made by appellants to avoid manipulation of facts for tax benefits.