V.P. Gulati, Member (T)

1. This appeal is against the order of the Collector of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Hyderabad.

2. The short point that falls for consideration is whether the appellants would be entitled to the benefit of concessional assessment for the full value of Rs. 75 lakhs for specified goods under Notification 175/86 notwithstanding the fact that the limit of Rs. 75 lakhs has been crossed by aggregating the value of clearances at the tariff rate and at concessional rate under Notification 175/86.

3. The learned Advocate for the appellants pleaded that the learned appellate authority has not appreciated the ratio of the decisions cited before him in the proper perspective. He pleaded that the appellants relied upon the decisions of this Tribunal before the learned lower appellate authority in the case of Premier Rubber & Trades v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in MANU/CC/0014/1990 : 1990 (50) E.L.T. 304 (Tribunal) and Purushotham Goculdas Plywood Co. v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in MANU/CC/0017/1989 : 1990 (47) E.L.T. 30 (Tribunal). The Tribunal in these decisions has held that irrespective of the fact that the first clearances made also included the element of goods which were cleared on payment of duty the benefit of the concessional assessment would be available for the aggregate value of Rs. 30 lakhs as envisaged in clause (a) of Para 1 of the Notification. In these orders the Tribunal has interpreted the words "first clearances" as mentioned in clause (a) for concessional assessment purposes as meaning that the clearances of the said goods in total would be eligible for the benefit of the concessional assessment to the extent specified in the Notification. The learned Advocate pleaded that irrespective of the sequences of clearances of the goods at concessional rate and at the tariff rate the assessees have to be given the benefit of Notification to the full value of the limits for concessional assessment as set out in clauses (a) and (b) of Para 1 of the Notification 175/86. He pleaded that sequences of clearances of duty paid and non-duty paid should not make any difference so long as the benefit claimed is for the value limits as set out in the Notification as above.

4. The learned Departmental Representative adopted the reasoning of the learned lower appellate authority.

5. We observe that the learned Collector (Appeals) in his order on the plea of applicability of the ratio of the decisions of the Tribunal cited supra has held as under :

"The exemption scheme under the small scale exemption notification No. 175/86 is an integrated scheme providing for duty concessions with reference to the value of first clearances made in a financial year. The financial year for this purpose is reckoned from April to March. A reading of the notification says that paragraph (a) provides for first clearances of the specified goods up to a aggregate value not exceeding Rs. 30 lakhs. Paragraph (b) of the said notification says that in the case of clearances (being the clearances of the specified goods of an aggregate value not exceeding Rs. 55 lakhs) immediately following the said clearances of the value specified in clause (a). Therefore, after the first clearances of Rs. 30 lakhs the importer is entitled to clear at the concessional rate on specified goods of an aggregate value not exceeding Rs. 55 lakhs. The proviso clearly suggests that the aggregate value of clearances of the specified goods in terms of clause (a) & (b) taken together shall not exceed Rs. 75 lakhs. In the scheme of clearances under Notification No. 175/86 the contention of the appellant has to be fitted and decided whether his viewpoint is correct or not. In this case from the facts it can be seen that the appellants had cleared goods simultaneously paying duty @ 5% and also 15% for some clearances at the instance of the buyer. In the computation of clearances of Rs. 75 lakhs the appellant had excluded the clearances effecte