GOVERNMENT WORK CENTRE Vs. CCE, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS herein are a manufacturer of wooden furniture. It is a unit of the State Government of Punjab. A show cause notice was issued on 4.5.1990 asking the appellants to show cause as to why a duty of Rs. 24,49,835.63 for the period 1.3.1986 to 8.12.1989 be not recovered from the appellants and as to why the penalty be not imposed on them. The aforesaid amount was proposed for recovered on account of the subsequent corrigendum dated 8.3.1991. On adjudication the concerned Collector of Central Excise confirmed a duty liability of 24,49,835.63 against the appellants. The Collector also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/ - on the appellants under Rule 9(2), Rule 173Q and 226 of the Central Excise Rules 1944. The goods seized from the premises of the appellants were also confiscated with an option to redeem them on payment of fine of Rs. 5,000/ - apart from asking them to pay a duty of Rs. 2,17,677.82 being the duty liability on the seized goods. Hence this appeal by the appellants herein. Ld. Advocate Shri V. Sridharan appearing for the appellants had urged that the show cause notice dated 4.5.1990 demands a duty only for the period 1.3.1986 to 8.12.1989 although on the basis of allegation of the suppression etc. the demand could in law be for the preceding 5 years i.e. from 4th May, 1985. This in itself shows, submits the Ld. Advocate, that the Deptt. accepts that the appellants unit was a small scale unit prior to 1.3.1986, that is before the introduction of notification 175/86 -CE. He further submits that para 4(b) of the notification 175/86 relaxes the condition of registration with the competent authority of Small Scale Industries if manufacturer had been availing of benefit of any of the notifications mentioned in that para. He points out that the appellants were thus (by implication) availing the benefit of notification 77/83 -CE and 77/85 -CE. The admitted position being that the clearances of the excisable goods made by the appellants was to the tune of Rs. 16,35,283 during the preceding financial year 1985 -86. In view of this admitted position he submits that the requirement of not registering with the authorities is not called for and therefore the benefit of notification 175/86 -CE could not be denied to the appellants with effect from 1.3.1986. For this proposition Ld. Advocate relies on Tribunals' judgment in the case of Accura Industries : 1992 (58) ELT 98 :, 1993 (46) ECR 29 (T) and Vikram Laminates, 1995 (75) ELT 147.

(2.) APART from the said submission Ld. Advocate has drawn attention to Annexure B to the said show cause notice. He points out that in respect of certain headings the appellants' clearances exceed Rs. 15 lakhs. Only in respect of those headings, there may be marginal payment of duty by the appellants otherwise he will get substantial exemption under the said notification. For instance he draws attention to the clearances under sub -heading 94.03 during the years 1986 -1987, 1987 -1988 and 1988 -1989 wherein the figures of clearances under that heading have exceeded Rs. 15 lakhs. He submits that on the basis of extending the exemption notification whatever duty liability on account of excess being over and above the exemption limit of Rs. 15 lakh the same may be got determined by the authorities on remand.

(3.) IN view of the foregoing submissions Ld. Advocate submits that the matter may be remanded to the original authority after extending the benefit of notification 175/86 and the duty liability be re -determined in the light of the above submissions.