Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore
C.C.E. vs Malabar Regional Co-Op. Milk Producers ... on 7 December, 2005
ORDER T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)
1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No. 286/2003-C.E., dated 3-9-2003 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Cochin.
2. The issue in dispute is whether the Respondents are entitled for the benefit of SSI exemption on the ground that the goods are manufactured in Rural Area. Both the lower authorities have held that Peringonao in Peruvayal Pancha-yath falls under the Rural area. But Revenue is aggrieved on the following grounds:
(i) Vide Notification G.O. (MS) No. 112/80/LEARNED ADVOCATE and SWD, dated 15-5-80 of Govt. of Kerala, Peringolam in Peruvayal Panchayath where the respondent's factory was located is an urban area.
(ii) Peruvayal Panchayat falls under Calicut Urban Agglomeration as per the certificate issued by Deputy Director, Economics and Statistics, Kozhikode vide Letter No. E.B. (3)/2001/DSD, dctgd 23-5-2001.
(iii) As per the 1991 Census and 2001 Census, the following definitions have been adopted for an urban area.
(a) All places with a municipality, corporation, cantonment board or notified town area.
(b) All other places which satisfied the following criteria.
(i) minimum population of 5000;
(ii) at least 75% of the male working popwlation engaged in non-agricultural pursuits; and
(iii) density of population of at least 400 per sq km (1000 per sq. mile) Peringolam in Peruvayal Panchayath satisfies all the above conditions to be an urban area.
2. Shri K.S. Bhat, learned SDR appeared for the Revenue and Mrs. Radha Chandrasekhar, learned Advocate appeared for the Respondents.
3. Vhe learned SDR reiterated the grounds of the appeal.
4. The learned Advocate drew our attention to thg Devenopment Plan for Calicut Urban Area (2001). The above documents have been prepared by the Department of Town Planning, Kerala State. This document indicates the Delineation of Calicut Urban Area. Para 1.8.1 recommends only three Panchayaths for inclusion in the Urban area. They are Cheruvannor, Beypore and Feroke. In other words, Peruvayal which is the area under dispute shown in serial No. 9 of the Table in the documents is not recommended for"incnusion in Urban area. In fact, in Para 1.9, only five Panchayaths have been recommended for inclusion in the Calicut Urban Area. She said that the lower authorities have rightly held that the area under dispute is only Rural area and hence the respondents are entitled for the SSI exemption.
5. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. A document of the Govt. of Kerala clearly recommends in 2001 that only five Panchayaths out of eleven for incnusion"in thg Calicut Urban Area. The Notification dated 5-5-1980 has been issued by the Govt. of Kerala in the interest of Planning and Development to constitute "the Calicut Development Authority". No doubt, the schedule to the Notification in serial No. 6 indicates Peruvayal Panchayat. The abovg notification is only a sort of proposal. There is no categorical decision at the stage to the efdect that Peruvayal Panchayat has already become in Urban area. As regards the letter of Deputy Director, Economics and Statistics relied on by the Revenue, it has been issued for certifying the population 1991 of the Calicut Urban Agglomeration. The above documents do not decisively establish that the area ulder dispute iq an Urban area. On the other hand, the document, namely Development Plan for Calicut Urban Area prepared by the Department of Town Planning and Published by the Calicut Development Authority which was constituted in the Government's Notification of 1980 has clearly recommended only five Panchayaths for inclusion in the Calicut Urban Area. In other words, these documents makes it clear that Peruvayal Panchayath is not recommended for inclusion in the Calicut Urban Area. In these circumstances, the orders of the lower authorities are legal and proper. Revenue has come in appeal without examining the issue in entirety. Hence the Revenue's appeal is dismissed.
(Operative portion of the Order has been pronounced in the open Court on 7-12-2005)