2001 (1) TMI 683 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Revenue appeal against Order-in-Appeal regarding eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E.

Analysis:
1. Issue: Revenue's disagreement with the Commissioner's decision on eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E.

Analysis: The Revenue appealed against Order-in-Appeal No. 540/96, dated 9-7-1996, concerning M/s. Jaya & Co. The Commissioner allowed the appellants to benefit from Notification No. 1/93-C.E. for clearances of one oil furnace boiler, referencing the Tribunal's judgment in Venkateswara Textile Engineering Ltd. v. CCE. The Revenue contested this decision, arguing that the exemption is based on the value of clearances of specified goods, not turnover, as per the Notification. The Revenue refused to accept the Tribunal's judgment and reiterated its stance from the show-cause notice and Order-in-Original.

2. Issue: Arguments presented by the parties.

Analysis: The Revenue sought to appeal the decision and uphold the demands made by the Assistant Commissioner, emphasizing the grounds outlined in the case. On the other hand, the Consultant for the Respondent highlighted that the Tribunal's view in Venkateswara Textile Engineering Ltd. had been consistently upheld and no appeals had been filed against it. Citing cases like CCE v. Helios Antennas & Electronics and CCE v. Kranes Kraft & Controls (P) Ltd., the Consultant argued that the law was settled regarding the exemption being based on the value of goods, not the quantity.

3. Issue: Tribunal's assessment of the Commissioner's decision.

Analysis: Upon review, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner had correctly interpreted the Notification in line with the Tribunal's previous judgments. The Tribunal noted that in similar cases, the Tribunal had ruled in favor of the assessee's eligibility for the exemption, requiring duty payment only on the value exceeding the specified limit. The Tribunal cited precedents like CCE v. Helios Antennas & Electronics and CCE v. Kranes Kraft & Controls (P) Ltd. where Revenue appeals were rejected, affirming the Commissioner's decision based on the settled law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order, rejecting the Revenue's appeal as the Commissioner's interpretation of the Notification and reliance on previous Tribunal judgments were found to be legally sound and in line with established principles.