LexCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI versus M/S. UNIVERSAL ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI v. MIS. UNIVERSAL ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES AND ANR. MARCH 11, 2003 (SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.] Central Excise Tariff Act, l 985 Centrgl Excise Rules, l 944 Schedztle/r.8-Specified inputs and finished products-Computation of aggregate value-Notification No. l 75186 dated 1.3. 1986-Explanations II and III-Exemption to Small Scale !ndustries:_Assessee, an SS! unit Manufacturing final products as also inputs for use in such final products-Computation of D aggregate value for levy of excise duty-Assessee contending that for the purpose of computing aggregate value of clearances under the Notification, the clearances of excisable goods which are chargeable to 'nil' rate of i:futy or which are exempted from the whole of duty of excise leviab/e thereon by any notification issued under sub-rule(l) of r.8, not lo be taken into consideration-Held, fa:planation !I excludes value of finished goods exempted E under different Notifications, likewise value of inputs used for manufacture of finished goods are also excluded-Both being specified goods-Therefore, value of such inputs cannot be added for purpose of aggregate value-Assessee entitled to benefit of Explanation Ill while computing aggregate value for purposes of availing c:Xemplion under the Notification. F CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 11441-11442 G of 1995. From the Judgment and Order dated 6.12.1993 of the Central Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in A. No. E/2114/91-B and E/3349/91-B in F.O. No. E/416-417 of 1993-B. Anoop G. Chaudhary, Sanjiv Sen, Rajiv Shakdher and Ms. June Chaudhary for the Appellant. V. Lakshmikumaran, Alok Yadav and V. Balachandran for the H Respondents. 920 C.C.E. v. UNIVERSAL ELECT~\:A!- INP\l~'fRl!lS [SYE!l SHAJ.l MOHAMMED QUADRI, J .] 921 The following Order of the CQurt w11s delivered : SYED SQA,Q MOftAMMJi;I> QlJADRI, J. The Revenue is in appeal, against the common on:ler qf\lw Q11&toms, Excise &nd Gold (Control) Appellate Tribqnal, New P~lhi ~f9r sh<!rt, 'the Tribunal'] in Appeal Nos. E/2114/91-B and E/3349/9,H~, fil~g py th~ !l~~essees, dated 6th December, 1993. For appreciatil]g th~ qu.estion raised in these appeals, it will suffice to refer to· the f\jcts in \h\l Q<\Sll Qf Mis. Universal Electrical Industries, the assessee. The asse~Hll! manufactl,lre~ elec.tric toasters, room heaters, electric A B fans etc. I\ i§ 11 s11111ll ~Qalll jnd11~try Q]!dming benefit of Notification No. 175/ 1986-C.E. dljt~d. !~\ Jvl!\f<;h 1986 [for short, 'the notification']. The assessee C has been clearing the ~wills qnckr the notification, both the inputs as well as the finished gooqs .. On AY~Ust 6, 1990, a show-cause notice was issued to the assessee <;<1l!inl): ypon it \g el\philn as to why the benefit of the said notification should not b~ clenied. tQ it, After considering the reply filed by the assessee, t\w j\lriscliction\ll Collector t.Qok thll view that Explanation Ill to the notification wg!!ld be attri\cMll only when the inputs as well as the finished goods are D c\~arecl qnder the l]Q\ificl\tion !!lld. !IS the finished goods were granted exemption under other notific<itions, he Qonfirmed the demand of duty of Rs.1.88, lakhs. On appe&i by th~ (l~s~s~ee, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, by majority, by the p,rcler impugned in thl'lst.l appeals, Mr. Anoop 0, Ch&11dhary, learned senior counsel appearing for the E Revenue, vehemently contends that Explanation Ill can be invoked only if the finis.hect goo<fs 11re ckared under the notification and inasmuch as the fini~he!! gll\ld.s imi exem.pted under a different notification and would be cteern~d. tp be cleari'd. 11nd.er that notification, the assessee cannot get the benefit of J3xpl11nation jll t9 the notification. Mr, V, Lakshmikumaran, learned counsel appearing for the assessee, F Ill\ th~ other hand, with equ11l vehemence, submits that when there is a general lll\emptign for cle<irance of the finished goods, that factor cannot be taken !lg!linst the sm11ll ~ct1le industry, like the respondent; in computing the aggregate v1:11\1e for availing the benefit of the notification, submits the learned counsel. G E11pl!mation II imct ExplHnation III have to be read together to ascertain the (rye intel\tiQn, It would be clear from Explanation II that the clearance under 4iff@rent notifiP<itions granting exemption has to be excluded; so als
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.