TMI Blog2001 (2) TMI 485X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctory premises of Triveni Rubbers and M/s. Winner Rubbers P. Ltd., on 23-1-1991 on the basis of intelligence that these two units were manufacturing Rubber Beltings of vulcanised rubber having rubber compound more than 25%, falling under Sub-heading 4010.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act; that on the basis of seized documents and statements recorded, a show cause notice dated 6-11-1991 was issued to M/s. Triveni Rubbers for demanding central excise duty amounting to Rs. 75,62,092.30 paise in respect of rubber beltings cleared during the period from 6-11-1986 to 1990-91 alleging that the rubber beltings manufactured by them contained more than 25% rubber compound; that Shri R.K. Agarwal, Proprietor, had deposed in his statement dated 24-1-1991, that rubber beltings manufactured in his unit were of the same quality as those being manufactured by M/s. Winner Rubbers and the test result of sample of goods seized from Winner Rubbers revealed that the percentage of rubber compound was 64.8% and 57.9% by weight; that many of the delivery challans bore the same serial numbers and delivery challans were received from the consignees after delivery of the goods and these wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if any factory has acquired small-scale status from the Directorate of Industries, it would always remains SSI undertaking because the fact of small-scale depend upon the investment in fixed assets in plant and machinery; that such factory shall always be SSI whosoever is the manufacturer/owner. He relied upon the decision in the case of Raja Valve Industries v. CCE, Chandigarh, 2000 (37) RLT 134. The learned Advocate also mentioned that no time limit is prescribed in para 4 of Notification No. 175/86; that it was held in Prag Industries P. Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai, 2000 (115) E.L.T. 115 (T) that SSI exemption is available to the Appellants from the date the policy decision was announced by the competent authority raising ceiling of plant and machinery to Rs. 35 lakhs; that the High Court of Allahabad in the case of Satya Narayan Agarwal v. Govt. of India, 1978 (2) E.L.T. J476 has held that lower rate is applicable to the SSI unit from the date of notification as there is nothing in the notification indicating that the exemption will be applicable only from the date of satisfaction of the Asstt. Collector; that accordingly there is nothing in para 4 of the notification that exemption w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld also be considered as true and correct aggregate value of both type of rubber belting; that it is well settled law that a document or statement when relied upon in proceedings, it should be relied upon as a whole and not as stray sentences or part documents; that the true and correct aggregate value of clearances during the relevant period are as under :- Year Less than 25% More than 25% TOTAL 1986-87 16,04,714-40 11,73,669-40 27,78,383-80 1987-88 31,50,268-40 18,25,056-80 49,75,324-20 1988-89 40,51,511-00 13,41,185-20 53,92,696-20 1989-90 9,86,971-80 3,57,314-00 13,44,285-80 1990-01 ------------ ------------ **3,84,829-45 * based on existing seized 20 challan only. 5. The learned Advocate continued to submit that the Commissioner has added presumpted figure in all financial years on the ground of totalling mistakes towards the dutiable rubber belting; that there is no totalling mistake individual pagewise throughout; that the Adjudicating Authority has failed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s placed on the decision in the case of Kutch Cement (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Rajkot, 1996 (82) E.L.T. 280 (T) wherein it was held that as SSI certificate was granted without any retrospective effect in absence of any stipulation to this effect in the certificate, the concession under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. would be available only from the date of issue of SSI certificate. He also mentioned that similar views were expressed by the Tribunal in the case of Magnavision Electronics Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore, 1997 (91) E.L.T. 185 (T). Finally, the learned DR submitted that the Commissioner had accepted the calculations submitted by the Assessee observing that the investigating officers had not calculated the entries given in the diaries on the basis of formula adopted by them in the Show Notice; that when there was a dispute of such a nature which went to the root of the demand of duty, the principle of natural justice demanded that the investigating officers should have been confronted with the calculation submitted by the Assessee and to invite their reaction before accepting it unilaterally; that further the Department had interpreted their entries in column 3 in length whereas the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in substantiating their contention that the Appellants had not manufactured Rubber belting contain less than 4.5% rubber compound by weight. 9. The other issue is, whether the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 is available to the Appellants, and if yes, from which date. There is no substance in Revenue s submission that benefit of SSI notification can; be claimed only by an Assessee who is maintaining records of production and clearance in a system and transparent manner and not in a coded fashion in private notebooks. The benefit of exemption Notification is available to a manufacturer, if he satisfies the conditions, if any, specified in the Notification. Once the conditions in the Notification are complied with, the benefit of Notification has to be extended to such manufacturer. The Appellants have claimed that once they got registered as SSI the benefit should be available to them from the date of issue of the Notification No. 175/86 i.e. 1-3-1986. We do not agree with this submission. The benefit of the Notification will be available to them only after they comply with the conditions of the notification. The provisions of para 4 of Notification No. 175/86 are very explicit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther exemption from the beginning under the Notification No. 71/78. The Tribunal in that case denied the benefit of Notification in terms of Clause (c) of Notification No. 71/78. In this context, the Tribunal held that the reference to factory is related to the place of manufacture. The decision in the case of Raja Valve Industries (supra) is also not applicable to the present matter as in that case, the name of the new Concern was endorsed on the certificate itself whereas, in the present matter, a new certificate has been issued to the Appellants. Accordingly, the benefit of SSI notification cannot be claimed by the Appellants on the basis of registration certificate issued in favour of Vikrant Udyog. However, we find force in the submissions of the learned Advocate that the benefit of SSI exemption will be available to them from the date they applied for registration as SSI with the Director of Industries and not from the date of granting registration to them. This has been the view of the Tribunal in the case of Melwin Powleen Vanaspati Industries and Kohinoor Plastics (supra). The decision in the case of Kutch Cement Pvt. Ltd. is not applicable as the facts were different ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
