Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
C.C.E. Coimbatore vs Palanivel Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. on 22 March, 1996
Equivalent citations: 2001(77)ECC146
ORDER Shri SL Peeran, Member (J)
1. This is a Revenue appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) bearing No.199/96 (CBE) dated 22.3.96 by which he has granted the benefit of Notification No.1/93 to the appellants who are manufacturers of cotton yarn which was notified in the said Notification. They cleared cotton yarn on payment of duty up to 15.5.95 and filed classification list on 16.5.94 availing of the benefit of the said Notification. The Assistant Commissioner has held that the assessee ought to h ave taken into consideration the clearance of cotton yarn effected from 1.4.94 for computing the value of clearances of 30 lakhs under the Notification 1/93 and on the ground demanded duty of Rs 67,940/- for clearances effected from 4.6.94 to 23.6.94. The Commissioner rejected this finding of the Assistant Commissioner in the light of the earlier order in Appeal No.283/95 CBE dated 1.12.95 holding that they have taken the benefit rightly on computation of the value of clearances from the date of the Notification. The order No. 283/95 dated 1.12.95 came up before the Tribunal and the Revenue appeal was rejected. Further, the Revenue appeal on the same issue in the case of CCE vs. Sri Theivasigamani Spinners by final order No. 3320*97 dated 25.11.97 was rejected by upholding the contention of the assessee that computation of value has to be considered from the date of the Notification. The same judgement was again reaffirmed by this Bench in the case of CCE vs. Sellammal Spinners reported in 1998 (104) 685 (T). Revenue appeal was again considered and rejected in another matter in the case of CCE Coimbatore vs. SM Textiles vide final order No. 343/01 dated 1.3.01.
2. The learned DR relied upon the larger bench decision of CEGAT, New Delhi vide final order No. A/374-378/1996-NB dated 8.2.96(1996 (9) CXLT (Trib) CE-113) wherein the term "first clearance" was interpreted and held that the said judgements are distinguishable on facts.
3. On consideration of the submissions made, we notice that the Tribunal has already answered this matter. We find that the issue is finally decided in the latest order in the case of CCE Coimbatore vs. M/s SM Textiles vide final order No.343/2001 dated 1.3.01 wherein the Tribunal has held as follows in para 4.
4. The Ld. Consultant for the Respondents, on the contrary, relied on the decision of the Tribunal in Final order No.3320/97 dt. 25.11.97 in the case of CCE Vs. Theivasigamani Spinners in which it is observed that the limit has set out in the Notification will come to play only in the event of assesee opting for the benefit of the Notification and the aggregation, which is to be done, will have to be done 1; with reference to the operations as were carried out after he has opted for the benefit of the Notification. What happened before the appellants opted for the benefit of the Notification cannot be brought within the purview of the Notification inasmuch as the appellants were not operating at that time within the parameters of the notification as they wee clearing the goods without availing of the benefit of the exemption Notification. The Tribunal accordingly observed that there was no legal sanction for aggregating the value of clearances made earlier for payment of full duty towards the aggregate value of the clearances for exemption purposes, in terms of paras (a), (b) and (c) above. Reliance is further placed by the Ld. Consultant on the decision in the case of CCE.. Vs. Sellammal Spinners reported in 1998 (104) ELT 685 (T). In this decision also, taking into consideration the earlier decisions on the same subject, it is observed that the clearances prior to the date of amendment are clearance of the "unspecified goods" which cannot be logically/legally enter the foray of first clearance of 'specified goods'. It is further observed that the Notification exempts specified goods cleared for home consumption on or before 1st April in any financial year, in case of first clearance of specified goods up to an aggregate value not exceeding Rs.30 lakhs from the whole of duty of excise leviable thereon in terms of the tariff notification. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the respondents claim for seeking clearance of value from the date of Notification is fully justified and in that view of the matter do not see any merit in this appeal. Adopting the ratio of the above said decision of the Tribunal we see no ground to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the same is uphold and the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.
5. As a co-ordinate bench, we have to follow the ratio of the above said order and respectfully following the same, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and the same is confirmed and the Revenue appeal dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounce in open court)