1. By the present application, the appellant has submitted that the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Kamani Foods v. CCE, Patna reported in 1995 (75) E.L.T. 202 had held that full exemption to a manufacturer for certain specified goods is not available if he chooses to avail modvat credit for certain specified goods manufactured by him.
It has been submitted that in Final Order No. A/212/96-NB, dated 19-1-1996 in the case of CCE, New Delhi v. Chanderpur Board Mills, the Tribunal had held that the respondents cannot avail full exemption under Notification No. 175/86 for one product and availed modvat credit for another. It has been submitted that the decision of the Tribunal in its Final Order No. A/1696/96-NB, dated 2-7-1996 holds that there was nothing wrong in availing exemption under Notification No. 175/86 and pay duty in respect of other item under the modvat scheme. It has been submitted that an error apparent has crept in the Tribunal's order and therefore, the same should be rectified by recalling the order.
2. Shri Y.R. Kilaniya, the ld. DR reiterated the submissions as set out in the application made for rectification of mistake.
3. Heard the submissions of the ld. DR. None was present for the appellants. It was decided to proceed further with the matter on the basis of the evidence on record and the submissions made by the respondents.
4. I find that the Tribunal in the case of Faridabad Tools Ltd. v. CCE, reported in 1993 (63) E.L.T. 759 had held that exemption to SSI units and modvat benefit can be availed of simultaneously by a manufacturer but on different goods. The facts in the instant case are that the appellants are SSI unit and were availing benefit of Notification No.175/86, dated 1-3-1986. The appellants simultaneously availed exemption in respect of one item and paid duty at concessional rate in respect of other items on which modvat credit was availed. Looking to the facts of the case before me and examining them in the light of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Faridabad Tools Pvt. Ltd. (supra), I find that the ratio of this decision fully covers the impugned decisions.
5. I also observe that Collector of Central Excise had filed an appeal titled as Civil Appeal No. 7955 of 1995 before the Apex Court. The appeal has been dismissed as is evident from the Court-room Highlights reported in 1996 (82) E.L.T. A-149. Thus the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Faridabad Tools Pvt. Ltd. has been upheld/confirmed by the Apex Court.
6. Having regard to the above discussion, I hold that there was no mistake apparent on the face of the record, on the contrary, I find that the order is strictly in conformity to the order approved by the Apex Court.