Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Cce vs Unique Vinyl Products (P) Ltd. on 4 March, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(83)ECR312(TRI.-DELHI)
ORDER
S.K. Bhatnagar, Vice-President
1. This is an appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 10.10.1997 passed by the Commissioner of C. Ex. (Appeals), New Delhi.
2. Learned Departmental Representative for the appellant (Commissioner) stated that the respondents are registered with Central Excise Department but were not registered as/SSI unit with Directorate of Industries/Development Commissioner- SSI or DGTD. They filed their C/List effective from 1.4.1993 opting for payment of normal rate of duty upto the limit of Rs. 30 lakh after availing credit of duty on inputs.
2(a). Two show-cause notices were issued. They were asked as to why mod-vat credit should not be disallowed as they were governed by the Clause (2) of Notification No. 1/93.
2(b). The Assistant Commissioner decided the case with regard to both the Show-cause notices and held that when two notifications i.e. 1/93 and 14/93 provide benefit of exemption from payment of duty simultaneously, it becomes optional for the party to choose either of the two and simultaneous availment of modvat credit and full exemption under SSI Notification 1/93 cannot be allowed to the party.
2(c). The assessee filed an appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) without going into the merits of the case allowed the appeal vide Order-in-appeal No. 208/97.
2(d). The Department has filed Reference Application involving similar issues in the case of M/s. Modern Engg. Works and Mis. Mahesh Metal and the CEGAT vide R.A. No. R/6/97-NB dated 22.1.1997 and R/20/97-NB dated 2.4.1997 allowed the question of law raised to the Delhi High Court.
3. The learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the Tribunal in the case of Faridabad Tools Ltd. - held that an assessee can simultaneously avail himself of the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 (or 1/93) on some item(s) and the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of other item(s). The respondents had relied on CEGAT's decision in C.C.E. Meerut v. Nova. Vision Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 1996 (15) ELT 336 : 1996 (66) ECR 560 (T) also wherein the Tribunal has held that the appellant can avail himself of Notification No. 175/86 in respect of one commodity and Modvat credit under a different item of the tariff. While giving this decision, the previous judgment of the Tribunal taking a contrary view has not been followed as the Supreme Court has affirmed the view taken by the Tribunal in Faridabad Tools Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and rejected revenue's appeal against the said order.
3(a). It is seen that the Tribunal has reiterated its judgment in Faridabad Tools Pvt. Ltd. case in its recent Order No. A/839/97-NB dated 3.7.1997 in Jainco Industries Chemicals, Delhi. Thus the CEGAT has held that the assessee had the option to simultaneously avail himself of the exemption for SSI unit for one product and to work under Modvat scheme for another product.
4. I have considered the above submissions. I observe that the learned Counsel's contentions have a lot of force. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has followed the Tribunal's Order in the case of Faridabad Tools Pvt. Ltd. (supra) since confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence there was no cause for interference. The Department's appeal is therefore, dismissed as already announced in the open Court.