Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Faridabad Tools Pvt. Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 20 April, 1992
Equivalent citations: 1993(63)ELT759(TRI-DEL)
ORDER
S.K. Bhatnagar, Vice President
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Collector (Appeals), New Delhi, dated 19-9-1991.
2. Learned Advocate stated that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Raw Aluminium Castings falling under sub-heading No. 8714.00 and Dies falling under Heading 8207.00 of the Central Excise Tariff.
3. It was their contention that the appellants are a small scale industry registered with Directorate of Industry, Haryana, is eligible for SSI exemption in terms of Notification No. 175/86-CE., dated 1-3-1986 (as amended). However, the appellants were denied this benefit on the ground that they had availed of Modvat benefit.
4. It was his contention that they had claimed benefit of Notification No. 175/86-CE. in respect of Dies, whereas they had claimed Modvat benefit in respect of the Raw Aluminium castings falling under Heading 8714.00., i.e., they were not claiming both benefits in respect of the same item. As such, in terms of the ratio of the Tribunal's decision in the case of Swaraj Paint Industries v. Collector of Central Excise, Cochin, reported in 1991 (17) ETR 37 and in the case of Abilash Rubber Products and Anr. v. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad, reported in 1991 (56) E.L.T. 168 (Tri.) , the department should have allowed their request. The Collector (Appeals) has, therefore, erred in rejecting their appeal.
5. The learned D.R. stated that the department has taken a correct stand in view of the language of the Notification No. 175/86 which refers to the goods specified therein. Further the facts were different in cases of those parties which had availed modvat benefit and these judgments cited by the Ld. Counsel are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Moreover the Tribunal has taken different view in different cases.
6. We have considered the submissions of both sides. We find that learned counsel is correct. The matters are apparently covered by the two judgments cited by him above. Hence, in view of the ratio thereof we set aside the impugned orders and accept the appeals.