K. Prakash Anand, Member (T)

1. Appeal No. 377/82 is a Revision Application, filed before the Government of India, against Order-in-Appeal No. A-1195/BD-493/82 dated 17th August, 1982, passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. After the constitution of this Tribunal, it has been transferred here and is now being treated as an Appeal before us. The Tribunal has also received and registered Appeal No. 288/83 against the same order. Both matters are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Briefly, the facts are that the appellants are manufacturers of Synthetic Organic Dyestuff, falling under Central Excise Tariff Item No. 14-D. Under Notification No. 180/61-CE dated 23-11-1961, rapidogens, falling under Item No.14D-CET, are exempted from whole of duty of excise leviable thereon, if such rapidogens are manufactured from other dyes on which Excise Duty or Countervailing Customs Duty, as the case may be, has already been paid. The petitioners filed a classification list under Rule 173-B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, claiming the exemption under this Notification. This was considered and duly approved by the department. Separately, the Government issued another Notification No. 71/78-CE dated 1-3-1978, which exempted synthetic organic dyestuffs (including pigment dye stuff) and synthetic organic derivatives used in any dyeing process, to the extent of first clearances for home consumption upto an aggregate value not exceeding Rs. 5 lakhs and cleared on or after the 1st day of April, by or on behalf of manufacturer, from one or more factories, from the whole of Excise Duty leviable thereon. The petitioners filed a classification list for claiming exemption under this Notification also and this was also duty considered and approved by the proper officer of the Central Excise Department. Availing of the exemptions, afforded under these two Notifications, the appellants, during the period from April, 1978, to November, 1978, cleared for home consumption synthetic organic dyes, other than rapidogens, upto an aggregate value of Rs. 4,98,436.00, and also cleared, during the same period, rapidogens of the value of Rs. 1,07,384.00. On 20/22nd January, 1979, the appellants were sent a notice from the Excise authorities that they should show cause why an amount of Rs. 33,332.99 should not be recovered from them on the ground that they cleared, without payment of duty, a total quantity of dyes, including rapidogens, of the aggregate value of Rs. 6,05,819, instead of Rs. 5 lakhs, as provided in Notification No. 71/78-CE dated 1-3-78. The notice stated that, in view of their availing of exemption under Notification No. 71/78-CE, on goods to the extent of Rs. 5 lakhs, they were not entitled, separately, to avail of the exemption Notification No. 180/61, over and above the exemption of Rs. 5 lakhs. The appellants replied stating, inter alia, that the two Notifications in question provide for a separate exemptions and the limit of Rs. 5 lakhs under Notification No. 71/78 did not include exemption availed of under Notification No. 180/61. This plea of the appellants was not accepted by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, who confirmed the demand. The order of the Assistant Collector was upheld by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. It is against this order that the appellants are in appeal before us.

3. Now, before us, the appellants have re-iterated the view taken before the lower authorities that the two Notifications in question, namely No. 180/61 and 71/78, are independent of each other and there is nothing contained in either of the Notifications which would affect the separate entitlements of the assessee under these two Notifications, should he be availing of the benefit of both of them at the same time. It is further stated that classification lists, claiming exemptions under the two Notifications, were approved separately by the proper officer and, until this classification was reversed by t