ORDER
Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. Application is for waiver of deposit of Rs. 5.04 crores approximately and penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs under Rule 173Q.
2. Advocate for the Applicant says that the applicant manufacture in its factory various intermediate products which were exempted from duty under notification 121 /94 as amended by notification 67/95. The notification exempts such goods if used in the manufacture of specified final products. The applicant, however, did not avail of the exemption but paid duty at the rates specified in the tariff and took modvat credit of the duty so paid towards the discharge of the duty on the final products. He contends that it is now settled law that it is upon the assessee to avail, or choose not to avail, the benefit of exemption notification. He cites the following decisions of the Tribunal in support:
(i) Collector of Central Excise v. SAIL – 1990 (47) E.L.T. 389;
(ii) Uniaire (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Collector -1994 (70) E.L.T. 795;
(iii) Everest Converters v. Collector – 1995 (80) E.L.T. 91;
(iv) Gothi Plastic Industries v. Collector -1996 (83) E.L.T. 123;
(v) Polychem Ltd. v. Collector – 1997 (90) E.L.T. 156;
(vi) Jagatjit Industries Ltd. v. Collector – 1998 (99) E.L.T. 509.
3. He contends that the Collector’s reliance on the observation of the Supreme Court in Kailashnath v. State of U.P. – AIR 1957 SC 790, to the effect that an exemption notification is to be read as part of the statute had already been considered by the bench of the Tribunal which passed the decision in Everest Converters v. CCE and it had been held that the observation by the Supreme Court were made in a different context. He further contends that in any event the amount in question has already been paid and there is no question of its having to be deposited again.
4. The departmental representative contends that an exemption notification is issued under Section 5A of the Act in public interest and it has to be construed as it were a part of the statute. He cites judgement of the Supreme Court in Collector of Central Excise v. Park Exports (P) Ltd. – 1988 (38) E.L.T. 741. He says that the decisions of the Tribunal which had taken a contrary view had not considered the view of the Supreme Court in paragraph 12 of its judgment that the notification issued under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules has statutory force and an exemption under notification is as if it were contained in the Act itself. He says that the earlier decisions require reconsideration.
5. The decisions of the Tribunal cited by the learned Advocate for the applicant, all are of the view, that notwithstanding the exemption notification, it is the assessee’s option to avail or not to avail of an exemption notification. We note that the Supreme Court’s observation in the Kailashnath v. State of U.P. to the effect that a notification formulates part of the statute was considered in Everest Converters v. CCE. At this stage we are bound by the various decisions of the Tribunal and accordingly waive deposit of the duty demanded and penalties imposed.
6. Learned Advocate for the applicants made a request of early hearing of the issue on the ground that it is repetitive and fresh notices have been issued. Departmental representative leaves the matter to the discretion of the Bench. In view of the large revenue involved and repetitive nature of the issue, we consider it appropriate to hear the appeal out of turn on 4th May, 1999.