Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Assam Timbers on 20 April, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(112)ELT226(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER
1. The question for consideration in this appeal by the department is whether, as a result of amendment to Notification No. 175/86 by Notification No. 55/92 (and subsequent amend to it by Notification No. 67/92 on 22-5-1992) the assessee became disentitled to Notification No. 175/86 for the period from 1-4-1992 to 21-5-1992. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Collector (Appeals) has confirmed the finding of the Assistant Collector that the amendment made in notification did not disentitle the assessee to the benefit of notification. The Assistant Collector had found that the assessee continued to avail of the notification. From 1986 onwards only by virtue of the provisions contained in Clause (b) of the proviso under para 4 prior to amendment of the notification which became the second proviso after the notification was amended on 1-4-1989. The exemption enjoyed would continue unaffected despite issue of Notification No. 55/92. He said that this notification would only come into play only if the assessee had enjoyed exemption under Clause (a) under the proviso 4 or the second proviso as the case may be during any of the preceding financial years. The Collector (Appeals) did not find any material produced by the department justify interference with the finding of the Assistant Collector.
2. The department's appeal before us also does not seek to question the correctness of the finding of both these authorities in this regard. The statement made therein that Notification No. 55/92 will take away the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 is not correct. Notification No 55/92 will only apply if the assessee had enjoyed the benefit under Clause (a) of the proviso. This is clear from a reading of Notification No. 55/92. We therefore do not find any reason to interfere.
3. It will also be relevant in this context to refer to our decision on identical issue in C.C.E. v. Bharat Automobile (Appeal E/686R/95) where we had examined the issue in some details to arrive at the same conclusion on similar facts.
4. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.