ORDER
S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. This appeal arises from the Order-in-Appeal No. 100/2005 CE dated 21.4.2005 by which the benefit of SSI exemption in terms of the Notification No. 43/97 (S.T.) dated 05.11.97 has been denied to the appellants.
2. The appellant’s contention is that the certificate issued to them was with effect from 10.12.1997, i.e. from the date of Notification. However this plea has not been accepted and the Commissioner has held that the assessee was not in possession of SSI certificate during 16.11.1997 to 01.06.1998 and hence they are not eligible for the benefit of notification. The learned Counsel submits that the very issue was decided in their favour by Final Order No. 1279/2006 dated 28.07.2006 by this Bench, following ratio of the earlier Tribunal ruling rendered in the case of Praga Industries (P) Ltd. . He placed a copy of the said order.
3. The learned DR reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals)
4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. We notice that the very issue has been considered in the appellant’s favour by Final Order No. 1279/2006 dated 28.07.2006. Para 4 of the said order is rep reduced herein below:
4. On a careful consideration, we notice from the certificate of registration that the authorities have clearly specified the date from which the certificate would come into effect. It has been noted that the certificate will come into effect from the date of Government of India Notification i.e. 10.12.1997, this view has been accepted by the Tribunal in the case of Praga Industries (supra) in Para 8 of the said judgment, which is reproduced herein below:
8. On a careful consideration of the merits of the case, we find substantial force in the argument of the Ld.Consultant that the even on the date of which ceiling for Plant and Machinery investment was raised to Rs. 35 lakhs for SSI unit by the Administrative Ministry in the Govt. of India namely Ministry of Industry by a well defined Public Notice noted above on merits the appellants achieved a status whereby their application for registration as SSI Unit had attained eligibility in terms of the said Public Notice. Thereafter, it was only a matter of procedure and verification by the competent authorities concerned to consider, unfortunately, took a period of almost 3 years. However, the end result thereof was that the appellants were registered as an SSI unit. This registration was given in consideration of the said Public Notice issued by the Ministry of Industry enhancing the ceiling of said investment of Rs. 35 lakhs. Since that policy decision by the competent authorities in the Ministry had been announced on 19.3.1985 and the registration was subsequently given based on that policy decision, therefore clearly the appellants case was considered w.e.f. 19.3.1985. Since the period of demand is subsequent to that date, therefore we find great force in the argument of Ld.Consultant that SSI exemption should be available to them. We find that our own conclusions are supported by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sahuwala Cylinders Ltd (supra) which was further followed in Welbeck Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd. (supra). Therefore our conclusions are supported by these clear decisions on identical issue which have now become well established law. Therefore, respectfully following the ratio of these decisions, we set aside the order-in-appeal impugned and allow the appeals with consequential relief as per law.
In terms of the above ruling, the appellants are entitled to the benefits of SSI exemption as held by the Deputy Commissioner in Order-in-Original No. 24/2003 dated 30.12.2003. As a result the appellants are also entitled for the exemption from payment of Service Tax on the Goods Transport Operator services availed by them. The confirmation of demands is not justified in terms of the above cited judgment and hence, the impugned order is set aside by allowing the appeal.
Respectfully following ratio of the above noted decision, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any.
(Pronounced and dictated in the open court)