9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (9) TMI 109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der sub-section (1) of Section 5A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, [for short, 'the notification']. 3. The appellant is a small scale industry. It manufactures ordinary Portland cement, which is classified under sub-heading 2502.20 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The excise duty leviable under that sub-heading is Rs. 215/- per metric tonne. However, 'cement' falling under the said sub-heading, if entitled to avail the benefit of the notification, would be liable to excise duty at the reduced rate of Rs. 115/- per metric tonne. The Excise authorities as well as the Tribunal held that the cement manufactured by the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of the said notification, so the appellant is in app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... actory using vertical shaft kiln; (3) the total licenced capacity of the kiln is not exceeding 200 tonnes per day; and (4) the afore-mentioned requirements must be certified by the Director of Industries in the State Government or the Development Commissioner for Cement in the Government of India, Ministry of Industry. The proviso says that the notification does not apply to cement manufactured by a person who avails exemption under Notification No. 175/1986-C.E., dated 1st March, 1986. 6. The appellant approached the office of the Development Commissioner of Industry for certification of total licenced capacity. The reply says that as S.S.I. units are not required to take industrial licence, the question of certifying 'licenced capacity' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtificate, a contention was raised that it satisfied the requirements of the notification and, therefore, the appellant ought to be granted the benefit thereunder. However, the Tribunal confirmed the order of the Collector (Appeals) taking the view that the certificate does not answer the description required under the notification. 8. Mr. Ramesh Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant, submits that the appellant, being a small scale industry, is exempt from the provisions of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, and, therefore, the requirements of licenced production capacity is incapable of compliance. He further submits that the proviso directs that a manufacturer who avails the exemption contained in Notification No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
