ORDER
K. Sankararaman, Member (T)
1. The issue involved in this appeal is whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-CE. for the period from July 1989 to September 1989 when their factory had shifted from its previous location to a different one, when the Registration certificate issued by the General Manager and the Deputy Commissioner of Industries, Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat continued to show their original address. The appellant applied for change of address in registration from the State authority and got it in January, 1990. The department did not grant the benefit of exemption for the period when the appellant manufactured the specified excisable goods from their changed address on the ground that that was a different factory and that was not covered in the certificate issued by the State Industries Department. The Additional Collector of Central Excise after observing the required formalities passed the impugned order confirming the duty demand of Rs. 1,43,190.80 P besides imposing penalty of Rs. 30,000/-on the appellant. Certain goods had been seized and had been released provisionally in respect of which the Additional Collector appropriated a sum of Rs. 1500/- towards their value. The appeal challenges the aforesaid order. On behalf of the appellant Shri K.V. Parmar, Consultant submits that value of clearances on their factory from both the locations during the financial year in question was within the exemption limit. Since they had a valid registration certificate issued by the appropriate authority, they were not required to obtain fresh certificate on their shifting to new premises. What was required was a change of registration of address in the certificate already issued. They had taken necessary steps in this regard and applied to the Development Commissioner and got the certificate duly changed indicating their new address. He relied upon the Tribunal’s decision in Syn Pack (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay reported in 1994 (71) E.L.T. 98 in which the Tribunal had held that small scale industry exemption under Notification No. 175/86 was not deniable due to shifting of a factory to a different location.
2. Resisting the arguments in support of the appellant Shri Nunthuk, learned Departmental Representative advanced arguments in support of the impugned order. He stated that appellant had exceeded Rs. 10 lakhs in the value of clearances and was accordingly required to obtain Central Excise licence which had not been obtained. He also supported the other grounds taken in the impugned order regarding the inapplicability of the registration certificate issued for the original address after the factory premises had shifted to different premises.
3. We have considered the arguments advanced by both the sides. The point canvassed by Shri Nunthuk about the non-availability of exemption on the ground that appellant had not obtained Central Excise Licence is not valid. If appellant had failed to obtain a Central Excise licence, that could have constituted an offence under the relevant provisions which would not however affect their eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-1986. The benefit of that notification would be available to a small scale industry subject to the fulfilment of conditions stipulated therein. And there is no requirement initabout the holding of Central Excise licence. The other issue is non-availability of benefit of the exemption notification to a manufacturer having registration certificate which is issued by the concerned Director of Industries before the change in their address. We find that the issue stands fully covered not only by the decision of the Tribunal cited by the learned Counsel but by other similar decisions as for instance in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. S.K. Engg. and Trading Company reported in 1993 (68) E.L.T. 240, The benefit of the notification is available to a manufacturer and it is not specific to a particular address. In the present case the appellant had taken reasonably prompt action of applying to the appropriate authority for suitable change in the registration certificate and that change was also duly incorporated. The availment of exemption by the appellant was in order. The denial of benefit in the impugned order is not justified. We set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.