ORDER
S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)
1. This appeal is filed by Revenue against the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has granted the benefit of small scale sector exemption under Notification No. 175/86 for the period 1990 to 1992. This benefit has been granted after taking into consideration instructions issued pursuant to which trade notice was issued by Mumbai Central Excise Collectorate No. 26/87, dt. 28-4-87. This Trade Notice provided that units registered provisionally with the State Government authorities, could be allowed duty concession under the notification. These instructions prescribed that after such provisional registration from the State Government authority are obtained, they could be accepted for the purpose of duty concession as after proper verification.
2. We have heard learned DR for Revenue, and considered the points raised in the appeals. He submits that the Trade Notice issued in 1987 has been further clarified by a Trade Notice No. 33/92, dt. 13-7-92 which stipulated in that assessments should be kept provisional and should be confirmed within a period of one year. If such provisional certificate are not confirmed by the State authorities and the assessee do not produce the confirmed registration certificate within this one year the benefit could be denied. This clarification was issued, as it appears, from the copy produced before us, after consultation with Industries Department of Government of Maharashtra. The S.D.R. submissions to read the instructions issued in 1987. Trade Notice with this clarification cannot be accepted as in the present case, the respondent is not situated in Maharashtra.
3. Learned Company Secretary, appearing for the respondents, submits, that the earlier trade notice does not stipulate or envisage provisional assessment. In the present case no provisional assessment was ordered for the period under dispute in 1992. For the subsequent period, the assessments were ordered provisional. He further submits that in 1993 the classification list were approved provisionally w.e.f. 5-8-91. He submits that the clarification is applicable to Maharashtra and there is no such consultation with Government of Gujarat of one year period or any trade notice issued to this effect by the Commissioner Surat or Commissioner Vadodara. He relied upon the following decisions.
Sr. No.
Name & Citation
Ratio/point for which relied upon
(i)
Danavi Fibre Glass Products Put. Lid. v. CCE – 1991 (54) E.L.T. 460 (Coll. Appeals) [para 4]
Held that even after the expiry of the provisional registration
certificate, unit is eligible for SSI exemption un-der Notification No. 175/86-C.E., as in the time lag
between the date of expiry of provisional certificate and the issue of a
permanent registration certificate the industry does not cease to be an SSI unit.
(ii)
Kohinoor Plastics v. CCE, Mumbai-III – 1999 (34) RLT 268
(CEGAT) [para 5]
Held that unit is
eligible for SSI ex-emption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. for the period 4-12-1986 to 7-12-1987 based on the provisional certificate issued to them on
7-12-87
(iii)
Nirmal Rubber & Engineer-ing Works v. CCE, New Delhi – 2000 (124) E.L.T.
818 (T)
[paras 5 & 6]
(a)
Held that the
unit is eligible for SSI benefit under Notification No-175/86-C.E. for the
financial year 1988-89 based on the
provisional reg-istration certificate as SSI unit w.e.f. 5-4-1988.
(b)
Also held that
the availability of benefit of the
notification depends on the eligibility of the manufacturer and is not
depended on fil-ing/approval of classification list.
(iv)
Srimathi P.V.
Nitha & CCE, Cochin v.
CCE, Cochin & Apson & Adisons
– 2001 (133) E.L.T. 344 (T) =
2001 (46) RLT 801 (CEGAT-Ban.) [para4(B))
Held that
provisional registration as SSI entitled the unit for the small scale exemption limit.
4. We find, that when trade notices are issued, which are normally issued, pursuant to Board instructions, then the benefit of SSI notification based on Provisional Registration from SSI authorities cannot be denied especially during the period no further clarification has been issued as find under Trade Notice No. 25/93, dt. 12-7-93.
5. We follow the case law relied upon by the respondents in this case, and would conclude that Revenue has no case in appeal.
6. In view of our findings Revenues appeal is dismissed.