Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Commissioner Of Customs And Central ... vs Manohar Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. on 16 July, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004(178)ELT913(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER Moheb All M., Member (T)
1. This appeal arose out of the order of Commissioner (Appeals), who in the impugned order set aside the order of the lower authority and allowed the appeal. The revenue is in appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order.
2. Briefly the fads are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Texturising Yarn falling under 54 of Central Excise Tariff Act. The inputs, POY and final products of the assesses were made specified goods under Notification No. 1/93 vide Notification No. 90/94 dt. 25.4.94 and the benefit of modvat credit was allowed to these goods vide notification No. 24/94 CE (NT) dt. 20.5.94. The assessee was availing the benefit of proforma credit under Rule 56A prior to the issue of notification No. 24/94. They started availing benefit of first slab of Rs.30 lakhs of clearance value of goods at nil rate of Central Excise duty under SSI exemption. A show cause notice was issued demanding Rs. 48,682/- being the alleged short payment of duty on the ground that the goods in question are covered by Rule 56A hence Clause (a) (i) of Notification No. 1/93 is not applicable and the benefit of concessional rate of duty is no available to them. The original authority confirmed this demand.
3. The Commissioner (Appeals) however set aside the order holding that concessions under para 1 (a) & (i) (ii) were legally made available to these goods from 20.5.94 and the clearances made at full rate under proforma credit are not eligible for computing aggregate value of clearances for the purpose concessional rate of duly. He held that the aggregate value of clearances made prior to 20.5.94 are not includable for determining the eligibility under Notification No. 1/93. The revenue is aggrieved by this order.
4. The main ground of the Revenue is that from Para 1 of Notification No. 1/93 it is clear that the value of clearances to be taken for calculation of aggregate value of goods cleared for home consumption has to be include all the clearances on or after the first date of April in any financial year. The Revenue relied on the decision of Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ramkrishna Engg. Wroks v. CCE Bolpur [1996 (83) ELT 346 (T)] wherein the Tribunal held that the clearance of goods on payment of duty is not to be ignored while reckoning first clearances under Notification No. 175/86-CE dst.1.3.86 (SSI Exemption).
5. We have carefully, considered the written submissions and heard the Ld. DR Shri K.K. Srivastava. We observe that the Commissioner's contention that the clearances of duty paid goods should have been considered only from 20.5.94 is not tenable. The clearances in the present case are to be taken into consideration for computation of value under notification No. 1/93 from 25.4.94 and not from 20.5.94. In the present case the benefit of Notification No. 1/93 was extended to the goods manufactured by the assessee from 25.4.94 vide Notification No. 90/94 CE and the term first clearances should be relating to clearances of goods eligible for benefit of the notification from that date only. In the light of these observations the appeal of the Revenue is allowed and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside.
(Pronounced in Court)