Collector of Central Excise and Vs. Royal Coffee Works - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. this appeal has been filed by the department and is directed against the order of the collector of central excise (appeals), madras dated 28.2.89. the respondent herein was availing the benefit of notification no. 175/86 dated 1.3.86 in respect of chicory blended coffee from 1.4.88 and the first clearances exceeded the value of rs. 15 lakhs during 1988-89 and duty was being paid by the respondent. subsequently notification no. 233/88 dated 18.7.88 amending notification no. 175/86 (cited supra) was brought into operation extending the benefit of exemption in respect of package tea which was also specified as one of the notified items. the respondent sought to avail the benefit of the notification in question in respect of the first clearances upto the value of rs. 15 lakhs 1988-89 in respect of package tea. the original authority did not allow it on an interpretation that inasmuch as the total clearances of chicory blended coffee had exceeded rs. 30 lakhs limit, the respondent would not be entitled to avail the benefit of the notification in respect of the other specified item namely, package tea and the lower appellate authority, disagreeing with the original authority, allowed the appeal filed by the respondent holding that the respondent would be entitled to the benefit of the notification in question in respect of each specified goods upto a value of rs. 15 lakhs. it is against this order of the lower appellate authority, the department has come in appeal.2. shri p. sundararaju, learned s.d.r. adopted the reasoning of the original authority contending that the notification will have to be interpreted as has been done by the original authority in computing the total value of clearances of specified goods.4. we have carefully considered the submissions made before us. this issue has been covered and settled by a number of decisions of this bench and the bench has taken the view that the exemption limit of rs. 15 lakhs in terms of the said notification would be applicable in respect of each specified goods. the bench has taken this view in the case of "purushotam goculdoss plywood co. v. collector of central excisecollector of central excise, hyderabad v. electrical and general wood industries" (in e/a. no. 170/90) and the judgment rendered on 17.9.90. it is not disputed that the facts in the present case and the facts in the cases cited supra are all on fours.therefore, following the ratio of the said rulings, we hold that the finding in the impugned order is sustainable in law and in this view of the matter, we dismiss the appeal.

Judgment:
1. This appeal has been filed by the Department and is directed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras dated 28.2.89. The respondent herein was availing the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 dated 1.3.86 in respect of chicory blended coffee from 1.4.88 and the first clearances exceeded the value of Rs. 15 lakhs during 1988-89 and duty was being paid by the respondent. Subsequently Notification No. 233/88 dated 18.7.88 amending Notification No. 175/86 (cited supra) was brought into operation extending the benefit of exemption in respect of package tea which was also specified as one of the notified items. The respondent sought to avail the benefit of the notification in question in respect of the first clearances upto the value of Rs. 15 lakhs 1988-89 in respect of package tea. The original authority did not allow it on an interpretation that inasmuch as the total clearances of chicory blended coffee had exceeded Rs. 30 lakhs limit, the respondent would not be entitled to avail the benefit of the notification in respect of the other specified item namely, package tea and the lower appellate authority, disagreeing with the original authority, allowed the appeal filed by the respondent holding that the respondent would be entitled to the benefit of the notification in question in respect of each specified goods upto a value of Rs. 15 lakhs. It is against this order of the lower appellate authority, the Department has come in appeal.

2. Shri P. Sundararaju, learned S.D.R. adopted the reasoning of the original authority contending that the notification will have to be interpreted as has been done by the original authority in computing the total value of clearances of specified goods.

4. We have carefully considered the submissions made before us. This issue has been covered and settled by a number of decisions of this Bench and the Bench has taken the view that the exemption limit of Rs. 15 lakhs in terms of the said notification would be applicable in respect of each specified goods. The Bench has taken this view in the case of "Purushotam Goculdoss Plywood Co. v. Collector of Central ExciseCollector of Central Excise, Hyderabad v. Electrical and General Wood Industries" (in E/A. No. 170/90) and the judgment rendered on 17.9.90. It is not disputed that the facts in the present case and the facts in the cases cited supra are all on fours.

Therefore, following the ratio of the said rulings, we hold that the finding in the impugned order is sustainable in law and in this view of the matter, we dismiss the appeal.