2015 (5) TMI 770 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of SSI exemption - Notification No. 1/93-CE dated 28.02.1993 - appellants had not opted the benefit of exemption in respect of the goods under the sub-heading 7325.10 and paid full duty - Held that - The appellant contended that they were not aware that the goods under heading No. 7325.10 was within the purview of the exemption Notification No. 1/93-CE w.e.f. 01.03.94. We find that there is no dispute that after amendment of the SSI exemption Notification No. 1/93 as amended by Notification No. 59/94 the simultaneous availment of modvat and SSI exemption by the manufacturer on different goods is not permissible. - Following decisions of CCE Raipur Vs. National Cement Corporation 2013 (3) TMI 524 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT CCE Ahmedabad Vs. Ramesh Food Products 2004 (11) TMI 103 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and Kamani Foods Vs. Collector of CE Patna 1994 (1) TMI 109 - CEGAT NEW DELHI - there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellants. Accordingly No reason to interfere with the impugned order - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Classification under SSI exemption Notification No. 1/93-CE for specific goods, simultaneous availment of modvat and SSI exemption, applicability of Notification No. 59/94, denial of SSI exemption, demand of duty.

Analysis:
The case involved the appellants claiming SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93-CE for certain items but paying full duty on other goods. The Revenue contended that since the appellants did not opt for SSI exemption for specific goods, they were not eligible for the exemption on other products. The adjudicating authority confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 3,92,765, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Upon review, it was found that show cause notices were issued proposing to deny SSI exemption due to the appellants opting to pay duty at the tariff rate for certain goods under heading No. 7325.10. The insertion in Notification No. 59/94-CE stated that manufacturers have the option to not avail the exemption and pay duty at the applicable rate for specified goods. The appellants claimed they were unaware of the goods falling under the exemption post-amendment.

The Tribunal noted that simultaneous availment of modvat and SSI exemption on different goods is impermissible post-amendment. Citing relevant case laws, the Tribunal concluded that there was no merit in the appeal. Consequently, the impugned order was upheld, and the appeal by the appellants was rejected.

In summary, the judgment delved into the issue of classification under SSI exemption Notification No. 1/93-CE, the impact of Notification No. 59/94, and the prohibition of simultaneous availment of modvat and SSI exemption. The decision emphasized the importance of compliance with exemption provisions and upheld the duty demand based on the appellants' actions regarding specific goods.