1. The stay applications and appeals are in respect of the Orders-in-Appeal Nos. 111 & 112/2005 dated 13.09.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Cochin. As the issue involved is common and also lies within a narrow compass, we are taking up both the stay applications and appeals together for decision.
The issue relates to the computation of the aggregate value of clearances for the year 2002-2003, which is very material for availamnet of SSI exemption under Notification No. 09/2003 dated 01.03.2003. The appellants have carried out manufacture on their own account and also on job work. In order to determine the aggregate value of clearances of Rs. 3 crores in the previous year, the value of job work was also taken into consideration. However, there was an amendment to the Notification No. 09/2003 by Notification 67/2003 dated 11.08.2003. The effect of the amendment is that the value of the clearances under job work need not be considered for computing the aggregate value of clearances of Rs. 3 crores in the previous yean Now the issue narrows down to the following short point: The Revenue is of the view that the benefit of the amendment can be given only from the date of the amendment but, the appellant contends that as the amendment relates to the clearances of the previous financial year and it should be simply given effect to.
2. Shri Joseph Kodianthara, the learned Advocate who appeared for the appellants brought to our notice the decision of the Tribunal fin the case of CCE & C, Aurangabad v. Arvind Detergents (P) Ltd.- wherein a similar issue was decided in favour of the appellants. The following observations of the Tribunal are relevant.
The subject amendment relates to the value of goods cleared in previous year and once that value is altered by applying the amending Notification, the effect of that will be available to the clearances made in the relevant year. In the present case, the value of clearances for the year 1988-89 which exceeded Rs. 150 lakhs by including the value of goods manufactured by Respondent and affixed with Brand name of another manufacturer fell below that level by excluding the value of clearances of manufacturer fell below that level by excluding the value of clearances of such goods affixed with another person's trade mark. As the amendment relates to clearances effected in the previous year and the exemption is for the goods cleared in a financial year, the decision of the Additional Collector to extend the benefit of the amendment to clearances made in the financial year in question namely clearances in April and May 1989 is correct and we uphold the same.
3. The learned SDR pointed out to the impugned orders wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that for clarifying the scope or applicability of any notification, such notification should have been issued under Sub-section 2A of Section 5A of the said Act According to him, Notification No. 67/03 is not issued under this provision.
Accordingly, he held that the Tribunal's decision cited supra is not applicable in this case.
4. After going through the records and the relevant notifications, we are of the view that the amendment is directly on the point of the computation of aggregate value of clearances of the previous year.
There is no point in hair splitting discussion on whether the said amendment is retrospective or prospective. In other words, the question of retrospectivity or prospectivity does not arise at all. We have to simply give effect to the provisions of the amendment. As per the amendment, the value of the clearances done on job work basis is not to be included for computation of the aggregate value of clearances in the previous year. This view of ours is supported by the Tribunal's decision noted supra. Hence, there is no merit in the impugned orders.
Therefore we set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals with consequential relief.
(Operative portion of this Order was pronounced in open court on conclusion of hearing)