ORDER
Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)
1. A show cause-cum-demand notice dated 10-5-1988 was issued to the appellants herein for recovery of Central Excise Duty of Rs. 34,547.40 on envelopes falling under CET Sub-heading 4817.00 cleared without payment of duty for the period 1-3-1988 to 31-3-1988. The notice was withdrawn by the Assistant Collector vide Order No. A-117/88, dated 1-11-1988, extending the benefit of exemption under Notification 175/86, dated 1-3-1986 by excluding the value of clearances of envelopes from 1-3-1987 to 29-2-1988 during which period the said envelopes were exempted from duty in terms of Notification 43/86, dated 10-2-1986. The Revenue preferred an appeal to the Collector (Appeals), Bombay on the ground that the envelopes were articles of correspondence and not articles of stationery covered by Notification 43/86 and, therefore, the value of their clearances was required to be included for the purpose of computation of clearance value under Notification 175/86. The Collector (Appeals) set aside the adjudication Order No. A-117/88 and directed the Assistant Collector to reconsider the issue of exemption under SSI Notification 175/86 as the appellants were not entitled to exemption on envelopes under Notification 43/86. On remand, the Assistant Collector held that the benefit of the Notification 175/86 was not available to the appellants since the value of clearances was to include the clearance value of envelopes. He, therefore, confirmed the duty demand. The Collector (Appeals) vide the impugned order held that, since the appellants did not appeal against the finding of the Collector (Appeals) in his order dated 13-2-1990, that the benefit of Notification 43/86 is not available to envelopes manufactured and cleared by the assessees, the order has become final and, therefore, he has no jurisdiction to go into the question as to whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit under Notification 43/86. Hence this appeal.
2. We have heard Shri Gopal Prasad, learned Counsel and Dr. Rav-inder Babu, learned DR.
3. We agree with the learned DR that the Collector (Appeals) in his order dated 13-2-1990 has given a clear and categoric finding that the appellants had been granted an exemption which was not available to them in terms of Notification 43/86. He has held that the appellants are not entitled to exemption on envelopes under Notification 43/86, in paragraphs 4 and 5 of his order. Therefore, the Collector (Appeals) in the present impugned order is correct in holding that he has no jurisdiction once again to go into the question of availability of benefit under the above mentioned notification. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the impugned order which is correct in law and accordingly we uphold the same and reject the appeal.
4. No arguments were advanced on the miscellaneous application for raising additional grounds and hence it is dismissed as not pressed.
