COTEKAR ELECTRONICS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CALICUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short point to be considered in this case is whether proprietary concern is exempted in terms of Notification No. 88/88 -C.E., dated 1 -3 -1988.

(2.) THE Counsel appearing for the appellant, drew our attention to the proviso in the said Notification, which is as under : - Exemption to certain specified goods manufactured in rural area by Co -operatives/K.V.I.C., etc. - In exercise of the powers conferred by sub -rule (i) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts goods of the description specified in column (3) of the Table hereto annexed and falling under Chapter No. or Heading No. of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) specified in the corresponding entry in column (2) of the said Table, from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon, which is specified in the said Schedule : Provided that such goods are manufactured in rural areas by registered co -operative societies, including womens societies, or by the Khadi and Village Industries Commission or by the State Khadi and Village Industries Board. Provided further that the exemption in respect of electronic goods specified in S. Nos. 05 to 08 of the said Table shall be applicable only if individual components of such electronic goods are assembled in rural areas by such Co -operative Societies, or by the Khadi and Village Industries Commission or by the State Khadi Village Industries Board and to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise within three months from the date of commencement of production of such electronic goods or within such extended period as he may allow.

(3.) THE department was of the view that since the unit was owned by a sole proprietor, it is not covered by the expression Institution and accordingly, the exemption is not permissible in terms of the Notification. Furthermore, it was submitted by the Departmental representative that the issue involved herein has already been considered by the Tribunal in the case of Devilal Kutir Soap v. CCE, Jaipur reported in 2001 (127) E.L.T. 143 holding that the propriety concern unit cannot be considered to be an Institution. It was also submitted that the view taken by the Tribunal has been upheld by the Supreme Court as reported in 2001 (130) E.L.T. at A94. Further Review application filed by the Revenue has also been dismissed.