2008 (1) TMI 693 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Eligibility of benefit of Notification No. 175/86 under clause (b) of para 4 - Appeal by Revenue against impugned order allowing respondent's appeal.

Analysis:
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai heard the appeal filed by the Revenue against an order allowing the respondent's appeal. The issue revolved around the eligibility of the respondent for the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 under clause (b) of para 4. The respondent was not registered as a Small Scale Industry with the Directorate of Industries, and the value of excisable goods in the preceding financial year exceeded Rs. 7.5 lakhs.

The learned Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the respondent's appeal based on the argument that the appellant had availed exemption under different provisions before the relevant notification came into force. The Commissioner held that the appellant was eligible for exemption under Notification No. 175/86 for a specific period as they had not availed of exemption under clause (a) of the first proviso to para 4, but only under clause (b). The Revenue did not dispute this claim.

The Tribunal found that there was no dispute regarding the eligibility of the respondent's benefit under clause (b) of para 4 of Notification No. 175/86. As a result, the appeal filed by the Revenue was considered devoid of merit and was rejected. The Tribunal disposed of the appeal at this stage due to the narrow compass of the issue involved.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the eligibility of the respondent for the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 under clause (b) of para 4. The Tribunal's judgment emphasized the specific clauses of the notification and the lack of dispute over the respondent's eligibility, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal.