Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Power Volts Electricals

Commissioner of Central Excise, vs M/S. Power Volts Electricals

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Apr 16, 2001

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/22159

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/22159
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Apr 16, 2001
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise,

Respondent

M/S. Power Volts Electricals

Legal References

Reported In: (2001)(133)ELT612Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. this appeal by the commissioner is against the order of the commissioner (appeals) in which that authority has held that it was not incumbent upon the manufacturer, power volts electrical, to abide by the conditions of notification 1/92 with respect to the first clearance of rs 30.00 lakhs which was exempted from duty.2. in his order, the commissioner (appeals) has accepted the contention advanced before him by the manufacturer that it had to choose between the two exemptions. at the relevant time, notification 1/93 totally exempted from duty first clearances of the value of rs 30.00 lakhs made by a person other than a registered small-scale unit and provided a concessional rate of duty for clearances thereafter. there would be no question of claiming modvat benefit in respect of the first clearances.the notification was subject to fulfilment of various conditions, such as relating to aggregate value of the goods, exclusion from the benefit of the exemption to branded goods etc. notification 52/93 unconditionally exempted specified goods from duty in excess of the concessional rate of duty provided in it. the question therefore is whether the manufacturer has a right to choose between a conditional notification granting full exemption for part of its production, and partial exemption for the remainder, and another notification which granted unconditional partial exemption for all the goods manufactured by it. in that situation, it would not be correct to say that the goods in any case were not liable to duty under notification 1/93. the notification governs clearances for a complete financial year. a manufacturer could conclude that it would not, throughout the year in question, be in a position to comply with the conditions contained in notification 1/93. different considerations might apply if the exemption to the clearances of rs 30.00 lakhs were unconditional and unrelated to the goods manufactured during the remaining part of the financial year. we are.....

Full Judgment

1. This appeal by the Commissioner is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in which that authority has held that it was not incumbent upon the manufacturer, Power Volts Electrical, to abide by the conditions of notification 1/92 with respect to the first clearance of Rs 30.00 lakhs which was exempted from duty.

2. In his order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted the contention advanced before him by the manufacturer that it had to choose between the two exemptions. At the relevant time, Notification 1/93 totally exempted from duty first clearances of the value of Rs 30.00 lakhs made by a person other than a registered small-scale unit and provided a concessional rate of duty for clearances thereafter. There would be no question of claiming modvat benefit in respect of the first clearances.

The notification was subject to fulfilment of various conditions, such as relating to aggregate value of the goods, exclusion from the benefit of the exemption to branded goods etc. Notification 52/93 unconditionally exempted specified goods from duty in excess of the concessional rate of duty provided in it. The question therefore is whether the manufacturer has a right to choose between a conditional notification granting full exemption for part of its production, and partial exemption for the remainder, and another notification which granted unconditional partial exemption for all the goods manufactured by it. In that situation, it would not be correct to say that the goods in any case were not liable to duty under notification 1/93. The notification governs clearances for a complete financial year. A manufacturer could conclude that it would not, throughout the year in question, be in a position to comply with the conditions contained in notification 1/93. Different considerations might apply if the exemption to the clearances of Rs 30.00 lakhs were unconditional and unrelated to the goods manufactured during the remaining part of the financial year. We are however not concerned with such a situation. In the situation with which we are concerned, we do not find it possible to hold that in such a situation a manufactured had no alternative but to avail of notification 1/93.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise, vs M/S. Power Volts Electricals Same Subject Excise