w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Ahsan Metal Industries V/S Commissioner of Central Excise

    Appeal No. E/1247/2008 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal no. SRK/343/M.II/2008, Dated: 03.6.2008 Passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai Zone-II) and Order No. A/91845/17

    Decided On, 12 December 2017

    At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai

    By, MEMBER

    For Petitioner: H.P. Kanade, Advocate And For Respondents: D.S. Chauhan, Superintendent (A.R.)

Judgment Text

1. The present appeal is filed against order-in-appeal no. 343/2008 dated 03/06/2008. The period of dispute is 1995-97. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant, at the relevant time, was engaged in the manufacture of aluminium utensils. For the purpose, appellant has collected the scrap ingots and melted in furnace which were converted to the plates (circles). These plates were cold rolled to get sheets of desired thickness from which circles were cut as per the required size of the utensils to be made out of it. The appellant claimed benefit of Notification no. 1/93 dated 28/02/1993 for the SSI exemption. The aluminium plates and sheets of utensils were exempted from the Central Excise duty as per the Notification no. 8/96 dated 23/04/1996. However, SSI exemption was denied to the appellant. So, the appellant has filed the appeal before the Tribunal who has remanded the matter (vide its order dated 28/02/2002) to the adjudicating authority to examine whether the appellant is entitled for the benefit of Notification no. 1/92. In the second round of litigation, the adjudicating authority upheld that the appellant is not entitled for the SSI exemption. The same was confirmed by the appellate authority. Being aggrieved the appellant has filed the present appeal.

2. With this background we heard ShriH.P.Kanade and ShriD.S.Chauhan, learned representatives of the parties.

3. From the record, it appears that to avail the benefit of notification, the aggregate value of clearance of exempted goods is not to be taken into account. However, if the exemption is based on the value of clearances effected in the financial year such goods would not be treated as exempted goods. As per the ratio laid down in the case of Universal Electrical Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise : 1994 (70) ELT 279(Tri.)] which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court [2003 (153) ELT 266 (SC)] the intermediate goods which were used for the final products cannot be considered for the purposes of final valuation.

4. During the course of arguments, the learned representative of the department has drawn our attention to the computation by both the lower authorities where it was shown that the limit of SSI exemption was already exhausted by the appellant. But fact remains that the value of the intermediate product was included in the said computation. When it is so then we have to set aside the impugned order, with a heavy heart, and remand the matter for the second time to the original authority to decide the issue afresh in the light of the decision taken by the Supreme Court (supra) but by providing a reasonable opportunity to the appellant. Fresh

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

evidence, if need be, admitted as per law. 5. Since the matter is too old, it is expected that the original authority will decide the matter within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed by way of remand.