ORDER
S.S. Kang, Member (J)
1. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the respondents. The notice issued to the respondents was received back with the postal remarks “factory closed”. Therefore, the appeal is being taken up for final disposal in the absence of respondents.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of matches and were availing the benefit of Notification 22/82-C.E. In the month of December, 1989, the respondents manufactured more than 15 million sticks. The jurisdictional Assistant Collector issued a show cause notice to the respondents stating therein that they have violated the conditions of Notification No. 22/82-C.E. Hence, they are not entitled for the benefit of this notification. The demand was confirmed denying the benefit of notification. The respondents filed appeal against the adjudication order and the Collector (Appeals) up-held the Assistant Collector’s order and dismissed the appeal filed by the respondents.
3. Against the order passed by the Collector (Appeals), the respondents filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assistant Collector for consideration of the question as to whether the duty demand beyond six months is legally tenable and is within the jurisdiction of the original authority under law as it stood at the relevant time. The Assistant Collector in de novo proceedings again confirmed the demand. The respondents filed appeal before the Collector of Central Excise and the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), vide impugned order, partially allowed the appeal and held that in terms of Sections 11A(1) and 11A(3)(ii) of the Central Excise Act, the demand has to be for a period of six months preceding from the date of receipt of show cause notice.
4. Ld. JDR, appearing for the Revenue, submitted that the ld. Collector (Appeals) wrongly interpreted the conditions of Notification No. 22/82. He submits that the benefit of Notification 22/82, is available only if the conditions stipulated in the said notification are satisfied during whole of the financial year and one of the conditions is that the assessee can avail the concessional rate of duty only when the total production of matches in a calendar month during the financial year by the said factory does not exceed 15 million matches. He submits that in the month of December, 1989, the respondents manufactured more than 15 million matches, therefore, the respondents are not eligible for concessional rate of duty for whole of the year. He, relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E., Madurai v. Kaveri Match Works (Final Order No. 395/88, dated 12-7-1988). He, therefore, prays that the appeal be allowed.
4. Heard ld. JDR and perused the appeal papers.
5. In this case, the respondents were availing the benefit of Notification 22/82 and one of the conditions of the notification was that the total production of matches in a calendar month during the financial year shall not exceed 15 million matches. In the month of December, 1989, the respondents manufactured more than 15 million matches. This fact was not disputed by the respondents. The Tribunal while interpreting the provision of Notification 22/82, in Final Order No. 395/88, dated 12-7-1988, held that if the limit in the Notification 22/82 on the monthly production has been exceeded in a financial year, the concessional rate of duty is not applicable for whole of the financial year. Respectfully following the ratio of the above mentioned decision, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed.