Beena Enterprises Vs. Collector of C. Ex. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. in this appeal filed by m/s. beena enterprises, the matter relates to the small scale exemption in terms of para 4 of the notification no.175/86-c.e., dated 1-3-1986. the appellants had a provisional registration certificate from the directorate of industries, which was valid upto 15-5-1987. they did not have a valid registration for the period 16-5-1987 to 1-5-1990 and it was found that the endorsements extending the validity for this period was forged. proceedings were drawn against them and the addl. collector of central excise demanded a duty of rs. 3, 55, 440.63 and imposed a penalty of rs. 2 lakh.2. shri j.p. kaushik, learned advocate, submitted that there is no dispute that during the year 1986-87 the appellants had a provisional registration certificate and that they were availing of the benefit of exemption notification no. 175/86-c.e. he submitted that in terms of proviso (b) under para 4 of the said notification, if an assessee was availing of the benefit of small scale exemption under notification no.175/86-c.e., then the requirement of obtaining the registration certificate was waived in such cases. he referred to the tribunal's decision in the case of punjab state forest development corpn. ltd. v.c.c.e., chandigarh 3. in reply, shri jagdish singh, jdr, fairly agreed that the matter was covered by the tribunal's earlier decisions.4. we find from the show cause notice and the order-in-original that during the year 1986-87, the aggregate value of clearances of the appellants was rs. 4,16,161.60. they had a small scale registration certificate which was issued in their favour on 16-5-1986 and was valid upto 15-5-1987. there is no dispute that during the year 1986-87 they were eligible to the benefit of small scale exemption and had availed the same. thus, on the interpretation of proviso (b) under para 4 of notification no. 175/86-c.e., for the years 1987-88 they were not required to obtain a registration with the directorate of industries of the state government.5. we find that the matter is covered by the tribunal's decision, referred to above, and relied upon by the appellants accordingly.6. as the matter is covered by the tribunal's decision on the subject, we allow the appeal.

Judgment:
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Beena Enterprises, the matter relates to the small scale exemption in terms of para 4 of the Notification No.175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986. The appellants had a provisional Registration Certificate from the Directorate of Industries, which was valid upto 15-5-1987. They did not have a valid Registration for the period 16-5-1987 to 1-5-1990 and it was found that the endorsements extending the validity for this period was forged. Proceedings were drawn against them and the Addl. Collector of Central Excise demanded a duty of Rs. 3, 55, 440.63 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 lakh.

2. Shri J.P. Kaushik, learned Advocate, submitted that there is no dispute that during the year 1986-87 the appellants had a provisional Registration Certificate and that they were availing of the benefit of exemption Notification No. 175/86-C.E. He submitted that in terms of Proviso (b) under para 4 of the said notification, if an assessee was availing of the benefit of small scale exemption under Notification No.175/86-C.E., then the requirement of obtaining the Registration Certificate was waived in such cases. He referred to the Tribunal's decision in the case of Punjab State Forest Development Corpn. Ltd. v.C.C.E., Chandigarh 3. In reply, Shri Jagdish Singh, JDR, fairly agreed that the matter was covered by the Tribunal's earlier decisions.

4. We find from the show cause notice and the Order-in-Original that during the year 1986-87, the aggregate value of clearances of the appellants was Rs. 4,16,161.60. They had a Small Scale Registration Certificate which was issued in their favour on 16-5-1986 and was valid upto 15-5-1987. There is no dispute that during the year 1986-87 they were eligible to the benefit of small scale exemption and had availed the same. Thus, on the interpretation of Proviso (b) under para 4 of Notification No. 175/86-C.E., for the years 1987-88 they were not required to obtain a registration with the Directorate of Industries of the State Government.

5. We find that the matter is covered by the Tribunal's decision, referred to above, and relied upon by the appellants accordingly.

6. As the matter is covered by the Tribunal's decision on the subject, we allow the appeal.