ORDER
M.P. Bohra, Member (J)
1. K. Sanyal, JDR for Appellant and Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, Consultant for Respondent. Mr. Sanyal submits that the ld. Commissioner (Appeal-I)’s reliance on the case of Faridabad Tools Pvt. Ltd., confirmed by the Apex Court – 1996 (82) E.L.T. A149 appears to be misconceived and erroneous. With this with the provisions of Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 which provides item-wise exemption for the specified goods manufactured in a factory and at the material period SS1 exemption Scheme vide Notification No. 59/94-C.E., dated 1-3-1994 was not in force. The SSI exemption benefit has been extended to the manufacturer and not to a factory. Therefore, he submits that in case a manufacturer opts out of the SSI exemption benefit, the option would be applicable to all the units of the manufacturer. The manufacturer cannot opt in for one unit and opt out for another unit. Therefore, he submits that the impugned order may be set aside. Learned Consultant Mr. Chattopadhyay submits that the Respondent’s case is squarely covered by Faridabad Tools Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise – 1993 (63) E.L.T. 759 which was confirmed by Hon’ble Apex Court and Larger Bench decision in case of Franco Italian Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai-II reported in 2000 (120) E.L.T. 792 (Tri. – LB) = 2000 (40) RLT 295 (CEGAT-LB). He submits that the case is squarely covered by the decision rendered in the case of Dum Dum Metalloy Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-III reported in 2001 (134) E.L.T. 171 ( Tri.-Kolkata). Therefore, he submits that the appeal filed by the Revenue may be dismissed.
2. The facts of the present case are similar to the facts of the case in case of Dum Dum Metalloy Industries Pvt. Ltd. The Eastern Bench of this Tribunal has held as under :
“SSI Exemption – Payment of duty on one product in particular financial year, may result in denial of the benefit of Notification No. 1/93-C.E. for subsequent clearance of that product during that financial year – Availability of notification not affected in respect of other product – Clause 4 of the Notification is applicable to a situation where the appellants exercise an option in course of financial year for availing exemption in a part of the financial year and for not availing for remaining part of the financial year in respect of the same product. The said clause does not debar from availing exemption in respect of some of the product and not claiming exemption in respect of some other product. In the instant case, we find that appellants, were availing benefit of small scale exemption in respect of machinery parts throughout the year and they never opted for payment of duty in respect of the said product and as such it cannot be said that by paying duty on waste and scrap they have made themselves disentitled to the benefit of small scale exemption in respect of machinery parts, for which, option in terms of Para 4 of the Notification, was never exercised by them. Payment of duty on waste and scrap in a particular financial year, may result in denial of benefit of Notification for subsequent clearance of waste and scrap during that financial year but will not affect the availability of Notification in respect of other products.”
3. The present case is squarely covered by aforesaid decision. I do not find any force in the appeal filed by the Revenue. Consequently, I dismiss the appeal.
Pronounced in the open Court.