Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Saurabh Construction Co. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 25 November, 1986
Equivalent citations: 1987(11)ECR175(TRI.-DELHI), 1987(27)ELT677(TRI-DEL)
ORDER V.T. Raghavachari, Member (J)
1. The appellants are M/s. Saurabh Construction Company, a unit of Kalani Asbestos Cement t (P) Ltd. The appellants manufacture RCC spun pipes; A.C. pressure pipes and tiles in different shades. The RCC spun pipes are classifiable under Tariff Item 68 CET. The appellants contended that under Notification No. 176/77-CE dated 18-6-1977 these RCC pipes manufactured and cleared by the manufacturer for home consumption were exempt from duty since the total value of the capital investment on plant and machinery installed in the industrial units was less than Rs. 10 lakhs and the value of the clearances of such goods during the preceding financial year was less than Rs 30 lakhs. This claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector under order dated 19-1-1979 and the same was up-held by the Appellate Collector under his order dated 8-12-1981. The appellants preferred a revision petition to the Central Government, which, on transfer, is now before us as this deemed appeal.
2 By letter dated 20-11-1986 the appellants had communicated that as the amount involved is small they will not be personally attending the hearing and that we may decide the case on the basis of the materials on record. We have heard Shri Vineet Kumar, SDR, for the Department and have perused the records.
3 The Assistant Collector has observed in his order that the value of asbestos cement products (falling under Item 23 CET) cleared by the appellants during the period 1-4-1977 to 28-2-1978 exceeded Rs. 45 lakhs. He, therefore, held that the appellants were not entitled to benefit under Notification No. 176/77 as claimed by them. Notification No. 176/77 read as follows :-
"In exercise of power conferred by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts goods falling under Item No 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), and cleared for home consumption on or after the first day of April in any financial year, by or on behalf of a manufacturer from one or more factories from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon, if an officer not below the rank of an Assistant Collector of Central Excise is satisfied that the sum total of the value of the capital investment made from time to time on plant and machinery installed in the industrial unit in which the goods, under clearance, are manufactured, is not more than rupees ten laksh.
Provided that this exemption shall not be applicable to a manufacturer if the total value of all excisable goods cleared by him or on his behalf in the preceding financial year had exceeded rupees thirty lakhs.
Provided further that the exemption contained in this notification shall apply only to the first clearances for home consumption by or on behalf of the manufacturer referred to in this notification from one or more factories upto a value not exceeding rupees thirty lakhs during a financial year subsequent to 1977-78 and upto a value not exceeding rupees twenty four lakhs during the period commencing on the 18th day of June, 1977, and ending on 31st day of March, 1978.
EXPLANATION : For the purpose of determining the value of any capital investment, on the face value of such investment at the time when such investment was made shall be taken into account."
4. It is seen that proviso 1 to the notification laid down that the exemption shall not be applicable to a manufacture if the total value of all excisable goods cleared by him in the preceding financial year had exceeded Rs. 30 laksh. The contention for the appellants is that the value of clearances mentioned in this proviso should be reckoned with reference to the goods falling under Tariff Item 68 CET manufactured and cleared during the relevant period and not with reference to other goods, though excisable under other items of the Central Excise Tariff. As noted earlier the words used in the proviso are "total value of all excisable goods". If the contention of the appellants is to be accepted one would expect the relevant words would have been "total value of the said goods", the said goods being the goods falling under Tariff Item 68 CET mentioned in the preceding paragraph. We are of the opinion that in so far as the words used in the proviso were "all excisable goods" the contention put forward by the appellants cannot be accepted. As mentioned earlier there is no dispute that the value of clearances in respect of goods falling under Tariff Item 23 CET exceeded during the preceding financial year Rs. 45 lakhs. Accordingly, we hold that the lower authorities were correct in rejecting the claim based on Notification No. 176/77.
This appeal is accordingly dismissed.