Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Cce vs Saharia Laminates (P) Ltd. on 18 May, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2000(88)ECR162(TRI.-DELHI)
ORDER
P.C. Jain, Vice President
1. Briefly stated facts of this case are as follows:
1.1. The respondent herein was having a provisional registration certificate valid from September 12.9.1990 to 11.9.1991. On the strength of that certificate the respondent availed the benefit of Notification 175/86-CE. Subsequently, however, the respondent shifted its factory from Nangloi to Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase II. Revenue has raised a demand of duty for the period 11.9.1991 to February 1992 on the ground that there was no valid registration for the aforesaid period and also because the factory had been shifted from Nangloi to Okhla Industrial Estate. The availment of the notification is for the earlier period for the factory at Nangloi and not for the new factory at Okhla Industrial Estate. Therefore, the benefit of Notification 175/86-CE was denied by the original authority.
1.2. On appeal the respondent herein succeeded. The said authority has extended the benefit of Clause (b) of para 4 holding that the respondent herein had availed the benefit of the said notification during the preceding financial year and therefore, they should be entitled to the benefit of the said notification during the succeeding year as well. It is against the said order that the Revenue has filed this appeal.
2. We observe that the finding of the lower authority cannot be faulted with. A similar question arose in the cases of (1) Punjab State Forest Development Corporation reported in 1998 (25) RLT 833 (CEGAT) : 1998 (77) ECR 64 (T) and (2) CCE v. S.K. Engineering reported in 1993 (68) ELT 240. In the latter case there was a change of address of the factory and there was a delay in getting the address of the new factory incorporated in the permanent registration certificate. The benefit of notification was allowed to the appellant therein on the strength of the provisions of para 4(b) inasmuch as the appellant therein had availed of the benefit of the said notification during the preceding financial year. A similar situation exists here in the present case. Therefore, relying on S.K. Engineering's case we dismiss this appeal of Revenue.
Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.