LexCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AHMEDABAD versus JALARAM WOOD CRAFTS (P) LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
COMl\1'ISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AHMEDABAD A v. JALARAM WOOD CRAFTS (P) LTD. MARCH 12, 2003 [SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.] B Central Excise Rules, 1944: Notifica1ion No.217186 dated 2.4.1986-Exemplion under-Assessee an C SS! unil emitled to benefit of Notification No.175186 dated 1.3.1986- Manufacturing final products and inputs for use in such final products-Both, inputs and final products being specified good.~-Computation of aggregate value for levy of excise duty-Notice to assessee proposing not lo allow him benefit of Notification No.217186 and demanding excise duty as its final products were cleared underfi1/I exemption-Claim of assessee that as per Explanation D lll of Notification No.175186, clearance value of inputs used in manufacture of final products not to be taken into account for computing aggregate value- Held, the point raised in these appeals is squarely covered by Mis. Universal Electrical Industries' case*-For purposes of computing aggregare value, both Explanations II and III of Notification No.175186 have to be read together and clearance value of the inputs will have to be excluded-Though Notification No.2 I 7186 applies to inputs used in manufacture of final products which are E nol entitled to any exemption under Central Excise Act, that question would become irrelevant if inputs are entitled to exemption under Notification No.1751 86-However, if under Notification No.175 clearance value of inputs was already excluded in arriving al aggregate value of Rs.20 lakh and claim for F exemption of inputs under Notification No. 217186 relates to different final products which are exempt under a different Notification, then assessee will be liable to pay duty in demand. Universal Electrical Industries v. C.C.E., (1994) 70 ELT 279 upheld. G Collector of Cemral Excise, New Delhi v. Mis. Universal Electrical Industries and Anr., (decided on 11.3.2003), relied on. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2358-2359 of 2000. H 1047 1048 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] 2 S.C.R. A From the Judgment and Order dated 5.8.1999 of the Central Excise B Customs, and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in A. No. F.R.O.A. 141/99-D, E/A. No. 4559 and 4460/94-D in F.O. Nos. 718-719 of 1999-D. Anup Chaudhary, J. Chandan and Rajiv Shakdhar, for the Appellant. V. Lakshmikumaran (A.C.) and Alok Yadav for the Respondent. The following Order of the Cou1t was delivered : SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, J. These two appeals relate C to the same assessee and arise from the common Final Order Nos. 718-719/ 99-D of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control ) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short, the Tribunal) in Appeal Nos. E/ A 4559/94-D and 4460/94- D, dated August 5, 1999. D When these appeals came up for admission on March 3, 2000, they were directed to be tagged with Civil Appeal Nos. 11441-11442/95. This was obviously for the reason that the question which was involved in those appeals was pressed into service in these appeals also. Be that as it may, Mr. Anoop Chaudhary, the learned senior counsel appearing for the Revenue, opened his · case disputing that these appeals are covered by the decision in Civil Appeals E No. 11441-11442/95, (Collector of Central Excise. New Delhi v. Universal Electrical Industries and Anr., dated March 11, 2003. We may note a few relevant facts of this case. F The assessee is manufacturing plywood veneer, panel flush door, panel doors, veneer timber board and block boards. It is also manufacturing glue, UF resins and wood veneer, which are used as inputs for the manufacture of the afore-mentioned final products. Admittedly, the assessee is a SSI Unit. Under Notification No, 175/86, dated 1.3.1986, it is entitled to exemption for clearance of the goods upto a limit of Rs.20 lakhs. The assessee enjoyed that G benefit. On February 25, 1992 and on September 23. 1992, the Assistant Collector. Central Excise, Division Gandhinagar Vidhyalaya. issued a notice to the assessee to show cause as to why the benefit of notification No.217/ 86, dated April 2, 1986, should not be denied to it as its final products were cleared under full exemption and why the central excise duty amounting to H Rs. 93, 147 and Rs. 32,607 should not be demanded. The assessee, in reply, - COMMN. OF CENT. EXCISE v. JALARAM WOODCRAFTS(P) LTD. [QUADRI, J.] 1049 stated that as per Explanation-Ill of Notification No.175/86, the cleara
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.