COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. AUTOMATS (INDIA)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue referred to this Larger Bench is whether the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 175/86 -C.E., dated 1 -3 -1986 as amended by Notification No. 55/92 -C.E., dated 31 -3 -1992 was available, for the period 1 -4 -1992 to 21 -5 -1992, to a small scale industrial (SSI) unit [not registered with the Director of Industries in any State or the Development Commissioner (Small Scale Industries) as a small scale industry under the provisions of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (Act 65 of 1951)] which had availed the benefit of Clause (b) of the first proviso to para (4) of Notification No. 175/86 -C.E. ibid during the preceding financial years.

(2.) IN the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai v. Assam Timbers 1999 (112) E.L.T. 226 (T), this Tribunal held that Notification No. 55/92 -C.E., dated 31 -3 -1992 did not affect enjoyment of the benefit of Clause (b) ibid by an unregistered SSI unit. In other words, the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 175/86 -C.E. as amended was available to an unregistered SSI unit for the period 1 -4 -1992 to 21 -5 -1992 where such unit had availed exemption by virtue of Clause (b) ibid during the preceding financial years. On the other hand, in the case of Duropolyprene (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Calcutta -I 1998 (101) E.L.T. 475 (T), another Bench of this Tribunal took a contrary view by holding that the effect of Notification No. 55/92 was to make Clause (b) ibid inoperative w.e.f. 1 -4 -1992 so that any unregistered SSI unit would have to fall back on Clause (a) of the first proviso to para 4 ibid for the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 175/86, which meant that the exemption would be available to the SSI unit during 1 -4 -1992 - 21 -5 -1992, if the value of clearances of specified goods during the preceding financial year (1991 -92) did not exceed Rs. 7.5 lakhs. This view was followed by the Tribunal in many a case later.

(3.) THE above conflict of decisions, which was taken note of by the referring Bench as per Misc. Order No. 129/99, dated 8 -11 -1999, brought the aforesaid issue before us.