Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)
1. The respondents herein filed a Classification List w.e.f. 1-4-1993 when they claimed the benefit of Notification No.1/93, dated 28-2-1993 for various products manufactured by them on the strength of Small Scale Industry Registration Certificate dated 16-2-1979. It was noticed by the Department that the Registration Certificate was valid for the factory located at A-18, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase I, New Delhi which was different from the premises A-19, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi where the appellant’s factory was located. It was also noticed that electric transformers and electric motors were not specified in the Registration Certificate. Hence, a SCN was issued on 6-9-1993 proposing denial of the benefit of Notification No. 1/93. The Asstt. Collector denied the benefit of the exemption and approved the Classification List without extending the benefit of the exemption. On appeal, the Collector (Appeals) dealt with the issue regarding specific mention of various products in the Registration Certificate and he held that it is not necessary for each SSI unit to get each and every product manufactured by it endorsed in its Registration Certificate in order to get the SSI exemption for all the items manufactured by it. In coming to this conclusion, he relied upon CBEC circular No. 18/93, dated 24-12-1993. He, however, did not give any finding on the other aspect as to whether change of address would affect the validity of the Registration Certificate. Hence this appeal by the Revenue.
2. On hearing Ld. DR and perusing the records, we find that both issues are settled in favour of the assessee by decisions of the Tribunal which have held that it is not necessary for each product to be specifically listed out in the Registration Certificate and that change of address will not affect the validity of the Registration Certificate. One such order in the context of change of address is in the case of CCE, New Delhi v. Gurvind Sales, Final Order No. 599/99-D, dated 9-6-1999. Following the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal, we hold that there is no warrant to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly uphold the same and reject the appeal.