9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (7) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l dated 3-6-1993 passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. That order actually covered 15 appeals filed by as many appellants before him. Arising from the said order these four appeals have been filed by the Collector. These were taken up for hearing and are disposed of by this common order. 2. In response to the notices of hearing, similarly worded replies have been received from three of the four respondents (1) Shanti Electricals, (2) Sandeep Industries and (3) P.H. Industries stating that being Small Scale Industries they are unable to arrange for representation in Delhi for arguing the matter and requesting for transfer of the appeals to the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal. In view of the decision we are taking in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at they were eligible for the benefit of exemption during the period 1-4-1992 to 21-5-1992. Hence the present appeals. 4. Shri Srivastava supported the grounds taken in the appeals and pleaded for the restoration of the orders passed by the Assistant Collector by setting aside the impugned order-in-appeal. He submitted that the respondents, not being registered with the Director of Industries as required under paragraph 4 and also not being protected from that requirement in terms of clause (b) of the first proviso to that paragraph because of the applicability of the second proviso during the period 1-4-1992 to 21-5-1992, were not eligible for the benefit of exemption as held by the Assistant Collector and the order of the Collector ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e relevant to the issue. In the circumstances, I must held that the orders of the Assistant Collectors are incorrect and since no other ground advanced by the Assistant Collectors, appellant companies are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 175/86 for the period 1-4-1992 to 21-5-1992. In the result, I allow the appeals and set aside the orders of the Assistant Collectors." We find that the Assistant Collector has misinterpreted the Notification and arrived at a wrong conclusion. Our finding to this effect flows from the language of the relevant paragraph of the subject Notification. That paragraph, as it stood on 1-4-1992 after the amendment brought about by Notification 55/92, dated 31-3-1992, read as follows :- "4. The exempti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... condition for the admissibility of exemption, the first proviso in that paragraph grants a relaxation from such a requirement. Clause (a) of the proviso covered a factory where the value of clearances during the preceding financial year or in the relevant financial year did not exceed rupees seven and a half lakhs. Clause (b) was an alternative relaxation from the requirement of registration and covered a case where a manufacturer manufacturing specified goods in factory other than a factory registered under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act with the Directorate General of Technical Development and had been availing of the exemption under this Notification during the preceding financial year. In other words, in terms of this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... more substantial as may be seen from a comparison of the proviso before 1-4-1992 and after that date which have been extracted above. But nothing really turns on this and, in the circumstances, the conclusion of the Assistant Collector in his order that the effect of the amendment will be that only a manufacturer who is registered with DGTD was eligible for the benefit of Notification 55/92 dated 31-3-1992 is totally off the mark. Actually this Notification was only an amending Notification affecting the second proviso of paragraph 4 of the Notification 175/86. The exemption was available under that main notification and not under the amending Notification 55/92. On merits also, as we have already observed above, there was nothing in the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... availed the benefit of this exemption Notification. The second proviso to paragraph 4 thereof will not come into play. In that case clause (b) was operative and not shut out. This will be the position in these cases as the claim of the respondents is that their clearances in the preceding years was more than Rs. Seven and half lakhs and hence they were not availing the benefit of the Notification in terms of Paragraph 4(a) thereof. This has been found to be correct as seen from the order of Collector (Appeals). The orders of the Assistant Collector also bear out this aspect as the case of the department is that the value of clearances had exceeded Rs. Seven and half lakhs in the preceding financial years. Such being the case, clause (a) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
