MA TARA ROPE WORKS Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE
LAWS(CE)-1991-10-3
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on October 31,1991

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K. Sankararaman, Member (T) - (1.) THESE two Rectification Applications have been filed by M/s. Ma Tara Rope Works and M/s. R.P. Wires & Fencings seeking identical rectification of a common order passed by this Tribunal on their two appeals whereby their plea for the grant of deemed modvat credit on the inputs, galvanised wires used by them in the manufacture of stranded wires was turned down. The relief sought by way of rectifications of the said order is that their alternative plea of grant of exemption available to small scale industry may be granted which plea had not been considered by us while passing the order in question.
(2.) The matter was argued by Shri S.K. Bagaria, learned Advocate on their behalf. He pointed out that both before the Assistant Collector and before the Collector (Appeals), the Applicants had, in fact, raised this alternative plea. The same was not considered by them. In the appeal before the Tribunal also the same plea had been included by them but as the thrust of the arguments during the hearing was on their plea for grant of deemed modvat credit, their alternative plea that in case the said plea was not found acceptable, they may be granted small scale industry exemption benefit had apparently not been considered by the Bench. He submitted that the applicants are eligible for the said benefit. The order passed by the Bench may be suitably amplified so that the said benefit can be considered by the Assistant Collector. He referred to the fact that in a similar matter concerning M/s. S.K. Ropes, this Bench had, while deciding on identical appeal, held them to be ineligible for deemed modvat credit and remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector for deciding their claim for small scale industry exemption. The arguments were opposed by Shri M.N. Biswas, learned Senior Departmental Representative appearing for the respondent Collector. He opposed the prayer for rectification.
(3.) WE have considered the submissions made by both the sides. WE are satisfied that there is a mistake apparent from the record, in our order dated 18th January, 1991, requiring the amendment as claimed by the applicants. WE, therefore, amend the same by adding the following additional paragraph, numbered Para-15. "15. As the appellants have raised an alternative plea in their appeal for the grant of the benefit of small scale industry exemption vide Notification No. 175/86 dated 1-3-1986 in the event of their plea for the grant of deemed modvat credit being rejected and as we had rejected their appeal as far as that latter ground is concerned, it becomes necessary to remand the matter to the Assistant Collector concerned for the limited purpose of deciding their request for grant of the benefit that may be available to them under Notification No. 175/86 dated 1-3-1986. As, however, the applicants also filed Reference Applications for referring certain questions of law arising from the orders dated 18th January, 1991 and as the same has been allowed and reference to the Honorable High Court of Calcutta is being made, the department may take suitable steps while granting reliefs to them in terms of the small scale exemption Notification. Shri Bagaria clarified in this connection that the benefit of deemed credit will be more than the benefit of small scale exemption and if at a later stage it is held that they are admissible for deemed credit facility, then the said benefit may be allowed to them by taking into account the duty benefit availed of by them under Notification 175/86 and only the differential amount paid to them.";


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.