ORDER
S. Kalyanam, Member (J)
1. Shri Venkataraman, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant challenges the correctness of the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Madurai, dated 7-12-1989 denying the appellant the benefit of Notification 175/86 dated 1-3-1986 in respect of the appellants’ clearances for the period 1988-89. The learned Counsel submitted that in terms of the findings in para 4 of the impugned order the appellants were eligible for the benefit of Small Scale Notification 85/85 and the appellants were enjoying the benefit of the Small Scale Notification upto 31-8-1987 extracted in para 4. The total value of the appellants’ clearance for the period August 1987 to March 1988 was only Rs. 5,77,241 as per the show cause notice. Therefore, the appellants’ case would be squarely covered by para 4 proviso (a) & (b) of the Notification No. 175/86 dated 1-3-1986. The learned Counsel fairly conceded that he was not quarreling the ultimate finding of the learned adjudicating authority on merits against the appellants. The learned Counsel cited the following case laws in support of his plea that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of SSI Notification:
(1) 1990 (49) E.L.T. 371 in the case of C K Suresh & Co v. CCE
(2) 1992 (62) E.L.T. 193 (Tribunal) in the case of Mahaganapathy Engineering Works v. CCE
It was further urged that even though this plea has not been specifically taken, this being a question of law can be argued without a specific plea
2. Heard Shri J.P. Gregory, the learned SDR.
3. We have gone through the records and considered the submissions made before us.lt is well settled proposition of law that under the doctrine of pleading any amount of evidence cannot be looked into in the absence of a specific plea. In the present case it is not disputed that the plea now canvassed before us with reference to the appellant’s eligibility to the benefit of Notification in question has not been specifically taken. It is not the case where the appellants’ eligibility to Notification cited supra can be accepted simplicitor on the basis of the same plea without further detailed examination of the facts with reference to the clearances during the various periods and the appellants’ eligibility as to whether the appellants would be covered by the parameters of various notifications etc. It is admitted that such plea was never taken before the adjudicating authority at all and therefore the adjudicating authority had no occasion to go into the same much less consider the same. We further find that the appeal was filed before this Tribunal on 23-5-1991 together with the stay petition and the stay petition has been disposed of by the Tribunal by its order dated 22-6-1990 and no additional ground has been taken even after a lapse of 3 years in regard to the plea now urged. It is only now after the learned Counsel was extensively heard the learned Counsel submitted that the appellants would be filing additional ground and sought the leave of the Tribunal. The learned Counsel also referred to ground No. 3 which says “the appellants satisfy all the essential of an SSI Unit and on a careful reading the appellants come within the ambit of Notification 175/86”. We are not able to agree with this plea of the learned Counsel because applicability of para 4(a) & (b) with reference to factual details has not been pleaded. More so the evidence with reference to appellants clearances and the plea in regard to eligibility to the benefit of Various notifications are hot on record. It would not be possible for an appellate forum like this to investigate and analyse into the factual ramifications and scrutinise the evidence to find out whether the appellants would come within the mischief of the various notifications and the parameters thereunder in the absence of specific and detailed plea. Unless such plea is taken it would not be possible for the Department to go into the question and give finding as in this case. While appreciating the fervour with which the learned Counsel advanced pleas, we are not in a position to grant relief for the reasons stated above. Therefore, for the reasons stated above the appeal is dismissed.