2000 (4) TMI 336 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Eligibility of respondents for benefit under notification 175/86 during a specific period.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to five applications challenging the common order of the Commissioner (Appeal) regarding the eligibility of the respondents for the benefit of notification 175/86 from 1-4-1992 to 21-5-1992. The Commissioner had ruled in favor of the respondents, confirming the Deputy Collector's findings. The Tribunal heard the departmental representative and the advocate for one respondent, while considering written submissions for another. The dispute revolves around the provisions of paragraph 4 of notification 175/86, particularly the amendments made on 01-04-1992, affecting manufacturers' entitlement to the notification's benefits. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions to determine the impact of the amendments on manufacturers' eligibility based on their previous availing of the notification under specific clauses.

The Tribunal clarified that manufacturers who had previously availed of the notification under clause (a) of the first proviso during any preceding financial year until 1991-92 would not be entitled to the benefit from 1-4-1992 due to the amendments. However, the restriction did not apply to manufacturers who had not availed of the exemption under clause (a) but under clause (b) of the notification. The Deputy Collector's findings indicated that the manufacturers in question had availed of the notification under clause (b) rather than clause (a) in the preceding financial year, allowing them to continue benefiting from the notification despite the amendments. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this interpretation, emphasizing the distinction between availing under clause (a) and clause (b) of the first proviso.

The department's applications did not challenge the Commissioner's findings but focused on the value of clearances exceeding Rs. 7.50 lakhs in the preceding year as a basis for ineligibility. However, the Tribunal emphasized that exceeding this value alone did not automatically disqualify an assessee from availing of the notification. The Tribunal highlighted that the amendment by notification 55/92 did not alter clause (a) of the first proviso, allowing manufacturers meeting specific criteria to continue availing the benefits under clause (b). The Tribunal referenced previous decisions to support its interpretation, favoring a decision that considered the effect of the amendments in detail.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Commissioner's decision and dismissed the appeals, affirming the eligibility of the respondents for the benefit under notification 175/86 during the specified period.