9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (6) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le under Notification 175/86, dated 1-3-1986. The facts of the case in respect of the two appeals are as follows. 2. Respondent, M/s. Peripheral India, New Delhi was availing exemption under Notification 175/86 in respect of their factory registered with the Director of Industries, New Delhi. In February, 1989, they shifted the factory to a new location and applied for change of registration to that authority. Pending the receipt of the new registration certificate showing the changed address, respondent continued to manufacture excisable goods and clear them from the new premises under the aforesaid notification. This was objected to by the department on the ground that as far as the new premises were concerned, respondent was not having ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss. It was the stand of the departmental authorities that the factory in the new location is a new factory and the benefit of previous year s clearances in terms of Notification 175/86 which entitles a manufacturer to get the same benefit for a succeeding year which is permissible under paragraph 4 read with proviso (b) is not available in view of the changed address and the factory being treated as a new factory. This finding was reversed by the Collector (Appeals) on appeal by the respondent herein. Thereby the present appeal. 4. Shri S. Nunthuk, learned Departmental Representative adopted the reasoning contained in the department s appeals and pleaded that the impugned order-in-appeal may be set aside and the order of the respective As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e previous orders referred to and followed by the Collector (Appeals) in his said order are the subject matter of the present appeals. Since the Tribunal has, in the S.K. Engineering Trading Co. matter upheld the Collector s findings and dismissed the departmental appeal, it would be appropriate for the Tribunal to consider following the same decision. Shri Mullick also referred to Board s letter F. No. 384/289-94/93, dated 17-12-1993 which has been communicated in Trade Notice No. 36/1994, dated 8-4-1994 of Meerut Collectorate. In this it has been mentioned that the Board s decision was that the benefit of Notification 175/86 will continue to be available even for the period for which registration of new premises was not endorsed in the Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... new factories in the succeeding year. We do not accept this view as in such an eventuality the provisions of the notification require the clubbing of clearances of goods manufactured by a manufacturer from one or more factories or conversely from a single factory by one or more manufacturers. Once the clubbed value of clearances by a manufacturer from more than one factory exceeds the different ceilings prescribed in the Notification they would be dealt with appropriately. 8. The contentions raised in support of the impugned order-in-appeal on behalf of both the respondents is valid in law and has found favour with the Tribunal in the reported decision cited above. We share the same view. We find that paragraph 4 which contains the stipu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
