Full Judgment
2. The facts in brief are that, vide Notification No. 90/94-CE dated 25/04/94, the S.S.I Notification No. 91/93 dated 28/02/93 was amended to insert goods falling under Chapter sub-heading 5403.00 (Polyester Texturised Yarn) as one of the eligible specified goods for the small scale duty exemption. It was noted that from 25/04/94 to 14/06/94 the appellants had claimed concessional rate of duty on the said goods, in terms of the said notification, whereas it was alleged that, the said concessional rate of duty was applicable only where a manufacturer avails of credit of the duty paid on the inputs or the capital goods or both used in or for manufacture of specified goods. It is stated that, before the introduction of Notification No. 90/94-CE, dated 25/04/96, the appellants were availing the facility of proforma credit under Rule 56A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Since the Notification No. 01/93-CE, as amended by Notification No. 90/94 talks about the applicability of concessional rate, only to such manufacturer who are availing the facility of modvat credit under Rule 57A and 57Q, obviously the appellants not being such manufacturer, the concessional duty was held to be inapplicable in their case. The demand in question was accordingly confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner. From the facts stated, it appears that the produce Polyester Texturised Yarn, which was made eligible for small scale benefits under Notification No.01/93-CE, was not included under the modvat scheme during the relevant time. Hence the appellants could not satisfy the other eligibility condition namely, availment of credit under Rules 57A and 57Q. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the lower authorities denying the duty concession, which is under challenge.
4. As can be seen, the issue involved is a short one. As is evident from the facts of the case that, though the scheme of small scale exemption under Notification No. 01/93-CE was expanded by inclusion of Texturised Yarn in the list of specified goods eligible for small scale exemption with effect from 25/04/94, the concessional rate as applicable therein was available subject to the condition that the manufacturer had availed the credit on duty paid inputs under Rule 57A or 57Q. Apparently, the appellants have not availed of the credit under the said rules (for the reason that the said modvat facility was not extended to polyester textorised yarn). The reasoning that the credit has been availed under proforma credit procedure prior to 25/04/94 does not make them eligible for the duty concession. Further as stated by them in their appeal, the fact that the Rule 57A was no longer available, in their case also can not provide any assistance to the appellants. The terms of the notification have to be read as they are clearly worded and not on the basis of assumption as to how they ought to have been worded.
5. In these circumstances, we hold that, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly rejected.