- (1.) In this appeal, the appellant claims to be a small-scale manufacturer of diesel engine parts falling under Tariff Item 68 and other parts of motor vehicles falling under Tariff Item 34-A. The value of the plant and machinery installed in its unit was claimed to be less than Rs 10 lakhs and since the value of the goods falling under Tariff Item 68 cleared by it during any of the previous financial years did not exceed Rs 30 lakhs, it claimed benefit of the exemption under Notification No. 89/79, whereas in respect of other parts of motor vehicles falling under Tariff Item 34-A, it was contended that the same were exempted under Notification No. 99/71 dated 25-5-1971 up to 1-3- 1979. However, the Department having taken the view that if the value of the goods falling under the said two tariff items are clubbed together, the total amount exceeds Rs 30 lakhs, therefore, the appellant would not get the benefit of Exemption Notification No. 89/79 dated 1-3-1979. This stand of the respondent Department was upheld by the Appellate Authorities as well as by the Tribunal. Hence this appeal.
(2.) It has been brought to our notice by Mr V. Lakshmikumaran, learned counsel for the appellant assessee that this Court in CCE V/s. Malleable Iron & Steel Castings Co. (P) Ltd. has taken the view that the language of Exemption Notification No. 89/79 is quite clear to the effect that the goods manufactured under the other tariff items cannot be included in the computation of the goods falling under Tariff Item 68. Similar is the view expressed by this Court in CCE V/s. Himalayan Coop. Milk Product Union Ltd. We find force in the contention of Mr Lakshmikumaran.
(3.) Refuting this contention, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent Department contended that the appellant assessee has not followed the proper procedure and the goods manufactured under both the tariff items emerge out of the same machinery and, therefore, it would be difficult for them to find out which of the goods fall under which tariff item.;