TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d:- 17-5-2016 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MRS. RAJ RAHUL GARG, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate For The Respondent : Mr. Sunish Bindlish, Advocate AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short the Act ) against the order dated 1.3.2004 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ) claiming the following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether the benefit of deemed credit order no. TS-36/94-TRU dated 1.3.1994 continues to be admissible to SSI unit even after crossing the exemption limit slab of ₹ 75 lacs in terms o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceedings against the appellant on the basis of the decision of the Tribunal in CCE, Coimbatore v. Sri Venkateshwara Steel Industries, 1996 (86) ELT 446 wherein it was held that the facility of Modvat Credit on re-rollable materials would be available to the SSI units even after it crosses the turn over of ₹ 75 lacs in the Financial year. Feeling aggrieved, the department filed an appeal on 22.7.1997 (Annexure P-4) before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide order dated 27.5.2003 (Annexure P-5) rejected the appeal. Still dissatisfied, the department filed an appeal on 25.8.2003 (Annexure P-6) before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 1.3.2004 (Annexure P-7) allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 27.5.2003 (Annexure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Digamber Foundry's case (supra) to be incorrect with the following observations:- 11. Thereafter, the Chandigarh Collectorate issued a trade notice on 25.7.1994 whereby the trade and all persons concerned were informed that the benefit of deemed credit on re-rollable material and ingots as provided in the deemed credit order was not admissible to the re-rolling units whose value of clearances was in excess of ₹ 75 lacs. Admittedly, for the year in question, the petitioner was entitled to avail the benefit of the notification No.1/93-CE, dated 28.2.1993. It is also not denied that the total clearances of the petitioner-company for the relevant year exceeded ₹ 75 lacs. A show cause n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have paid duty under Rule 57-I of the Rules and the credit may be allowed to them at the rate fixed without production of any documents evidencing the payment of duty. Any manufacturer whose total clearances did not exceed ₹ 2 crores was entitled to the benefit of exemption under the Notification No. 1/93-C.E. No doubt the benefits under this notification were limited to clearances of ₹ 75 lacs but this does not mean that manufacturers whose clearances exceed ₹ 75 lacs were not availing the exemption under the notification. In our considered view, the only interpretation which can be given is that the wording used in the notification identifies the category of manufacturers who are satisfying the criteria as set out in Not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... availing of credit. Whereas the Ministry's Deemed Credit Order TS/36/94-TRU, dated 1.3.1994 is that goods should be lying in stock on or after 1.4.1994 with the rerollers. As per the Ministry's Deemed Credit Order dated 1.3.1994, re-rollers availing exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28.2.1993 will be deemed to have paid the duty. 16. In the present case, appellant has not crossed the value of clearance of ₹ 200 lakhs during the preceding financial year and availed full exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28.2.1993 up to 24.12.1994 and thereafter started paying duty. Therefore, appellant cannot said to be not availing exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28.2.1993 during the year 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
