9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (4) TMI 336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from 1-4-1992 to 21-5-1992. In her order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held the respondent was entitled to the benefit of confirming the finding of the Deputy Collector. 2. We have heard the departmental representative and Shri M.V. Ravindran, advocate representing M/s. Sun Coat Industries (application 1176/95); none of the other respondents is present or represented. We have considered the written submissions of M/s. Sheelas Engineering (application E/1172/95). 3. To proper understand the dispute, it is necessary at this point to set out the provisions of paragraph 4 of notification 175/86 as it existed on 31-3-1992 : "4. The exemption contained in this notification shall be applicable only to a factory which is an undertaki ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncial years 1987-88 and 1988-89 did not exceed rupees one hundred and fifty lakhs." 4. By an amendment made on 01-04-1992 the second proviso was replaced as follows : "Provided further that nothing contained in clause (b) of the first proviso shall apply in case where a manufacturer who is manufacturing specified goods in a factory has availed of the exemption in pursuance of clause (a) of the said proviso in any of the preceding financial years." 5. An analysis of these provisions indicates that any manufacturer who had availed of the benefit of the notification in pursuance of clause (a) of the first proviso to paragraph 4 during any of the preceding financial year i.e., 1986-87 and till 1991-92 would not be entitled to avail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ible for exemption as the value of clearances during the preceding year exceeded Rs. 7.50 lakhs. However, as we have noted, this alone is not sufficient to debar the assessee from availing of the notification. An assessee who had exceeded the value of clearance of Rs. 7.50 lakhs during the preceding financial year would not in any case be entitled to avail of the benefit of the exemption under clause (a). This was, in fact, the position even before the notification was amended by notification 55/92. It is to be noted that notification 55/92 did not in any manner amend clause (a) of the first proviso to paragraph 4. Hence an assessee, before the amendment brought by notification 55/92 could ever avail of the benefit of notification, if it wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the merits of the issue. This paragraph did not refer to the amendment brought about by notification 55/92, but only proceeds on the view that an assessee's clearances whose value exceed Rs. 7.5 lakhs during the preceding financial year or was likely to be exceeded during the year in question shall not be entitled to the benefit or the notification. As against this decision, the Tribunal in its decision in CCE v. Bharat Automobiles - 1999 (105) E.L.T. 387 has considered in some details the effect of the amendment brought about by notification 55/92. We, with respect therefore, would prefer to follow this decision which has considered the only aspect in preference to the decision of the Delhi bench. 9. Accordingly, we find no reason to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
