ORDER
P.G. Chacko, Member (J)
1. This appeal was filed by the Department, represented before us by the learned JDR. No representation for the respondents. The notice of hearing issued to them has returned unserved. As the issue involved in this case lies within a short compass and already stands covered by orders of this Tribunal, we think, the appeal requires to be finally disposed of.
2. The respondents had manufactured 3052 units of matches during the period 1.9.92 to 21.9.92 and cleared the same availing the benefit of concession under Notification No. 22/82-CE dated 23.2.82. The Original authority denied the benefit of this Notification to the party by holding that as their production had exceeded 3000 units (15 million match sticks) in the month of September 1992 (1.9.92 to 21.9,92), they had failed to fulfill the requirement that the total production in a calendar month should not exceed 15 million sticks and they had disentitled themselves to the benefit of concession under the Notification for the relevant financial year (l992-93). The appeal preferred by the party against the order of the original authority was allowed by the Collector (Appeals) who held that, where the above limit was exceeded, the dis-entitlement for the concession under the Notification was operative only for the month in which the limit was exceeded. The Collector (Appeals) was following earlier Orders-in-Appeal passed in the case of other match manufacturers. His decision is under challenge in the present appeal of the Revenue.
3. Learned JDR submits that the above question was decided in favour of the Revenue by a learned Member of this Tribunal by order No. 738/87 dated 21.10.87 in Appeal No. E/202/87 in the case of Collector of Central Excise Madurai v. Panchavarnam Match works as also by order No. 345/88 dated 12.7.88 in Appeal No. E/561/87 in the case of Collector of Central Excise. Madurai v. Kaveri Match works.
4. We find that the issue stands squarely covered by the Tribunal’s orders cited by the learned JDR, in favour of the Revenue. It was held that where the production limit prescribed under Notification No. 22/82. for a calendar month, was exceeded by a match manufacturer in any calendar month, the benefit of the Notification was not available to him in that financial year. It appears from the cited orders that a Special Bench of the Tribunal has held the above view in the case of (Kutir Diyasalai Udyog U.S.S. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut reported in 1986 (6), ECR 396. Following the case law, we hold that the respondents were not entitled to the benefit of concession under the Notification for the financial year 1992-93 on account of having exceeded the production limit of 3000 units in September 1992. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.