Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Collector Of Central Excise vs Ideal Graphic Industries on 31 August, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1999(65)ECC397, 1999(111)ELT242(TRI-DEL)
ORDER V.K. Agarwal, Member (T)
1. These two appeals were preferred by the Revenue against the order-in-appeal dated 25-12-1993 and 1-2-1994 involving the issue regarding availment of benefit of Notification No. 175/86 as amended by Notification Nos. 55/92 and No. 67/92.
2. Shri H.K. Jain, learned DR submitted that both the respondents M/s. Ideal Graphic Industries and M/s Chaitra Mudranalaya were not having certificates of SSI from the Director of Industries and they availed of the benefit of SSI Notification No. 175/86 as amended by Notification No. 55/92. The Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the benefit of both the respondents observing that second proviso substituted by Notification No. 52 of 1992 does not disentitle any of the respondents from availing the benefit that this would disentitle them from availing of the notification in terms of Clause (a) of the proviso but they would still be eligible to avail the exemption under Clause (b). The learned DR submitted that the value of clearances in the preceding financial year had exceeded Rs. 7.5 lakhs in respect of both the respondents and they were not eligible for the benefit of the notification during the period 1-4-1992 to 24-2-1992 in view of amendment made by Notification 55/92, dated 31-3-1992. He further submitted that Notification 67 of 1992, dated 22-5-1992 is applicable from the date of issue and not retrospectively.
3. None has present on behalf of the respondents in-spite of notices issued to them. We have considered the submissions of the Revenue and perused the cross-objections filed by M/s. Chaitra Mudranalaya. The Notification No 55 of 1992 which substituted the second proviso, in para 4 of the Notification 175/85 reads as under :
"Provided that nothing contained in Clause (b) of the first proviso shall apply in a case where the manufacturer who is manufacturing goods in a factory has availed of the exemption in pursuance of Clause (a) of the said proviso in any of the preceding financial year."
4. Notification No. 175/86 was further amended by Notification 67 of 1992, dated 22-5-1992 by which another proviso was inserted after the second proviso in para 4 which reads as under :
"Provided also that nothing contained in the preceding proviso shall apply on and from 22nd day of May, 1992 to the 31st day of March, 1993."
On reading of the paragraph 4 of Notification No. 175/86 along with proviso as amended from time to time, it is apparent that the benefit of Clause (b) of para 4 was not available to the units during the period from 1-4-1992 to 21-5-1992 by virtue of amendment made by Notification 55/92. The benefit of Clause (b) was restored by Notification No. 67/92, dated 22-5-1992 only with effect from 22-5-1992 and not for the period prior to that date. In view of the specific mention in the notification, there is no reason to give retrospective effect to the amendment cause by Notification 67/92. In view of these facts and circumstances, the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in extending the benefit of Notification 67/92 for the period from 1-4-1992 to 21-5-1992 and accordingly both the appeals of Revenue are allowed.