S.D. Jha, Member (J.)

1. The main question for decision in this appeal to the Tribunal is whether the appellants, who carried out fabrication work in the year 1979-80 without obtaining a Central Excise Licence are entitled to benefit of Notification No. 89/79-C.E., dated 1-3-1979. Respondent has also filed what is described as a cross-objection in which the only prayer is to uphold the order of the Collector,

2. Notification No. 89/79-C.E., dt. 1-3-79 exempts goods falling under T.I. No. 68 cleared for home consumption on or after the first day of April in any financial year by or on behalf of a manufacturer from one or more factories :

(a) in the case of first clearances of the said goods upto an aggregate value not exceeding rupees fifteen lakhs, from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon; and

(b) in the case of the clearances (being clearances of the said goods of an aggregate value not exceeding rupees fifteen lakhs), immediately following the said first clearances of the value of excise leviable thereon as is in excess of four per cent ad valorem.

This concession is conditional on the capital investment on plant and machinery installed in the industrial unit, in which the said goods under clearance are manufactured, not exceeding Rs. 10 lakhs. Further the Notification is not to apply to a manufacturer if the total value of the goods cleared for home consumption by him or on his behalf from one or more factories in the preceding financial year had exceeded Rs. 30 lakhs. There is no dispute that during the year 1978-79 goods falling under T.I. 68 cleared by the appellants did not exceed this sum of Rs. 30 lakhs. There is also no dispute that the value of capital investment made by the appellants on plant and machinery at all material times did not exceed Rs. 10 lakhs.

3. It appears that by letter dated 10-4-76 the appellants informed the Superintendent, Central Excise, Bokaro Steel City of their being a factory engaged in the fabrication and machining work and using power for the purpose. They also undertook to obtain Central Excise Licence when they come under Excise purview. On 13-10-1980, the Superintendent, Central Excise, Bokaro City addressed a communication to the appellants calling for information regarding the job work done by them in 1979-80 and quantity of finished products cleared by them during the said period. The appellants replied to this communication by their letter dated 20-10-1980; wherein, they gave details of job work done by them totalling in all to Rs. 10,48,843.87 and the value of finished products supplied by them totalling in all to Rs. 14,44,658.93. They also gave the details of their capital investment on their plant and machinery at being Rs. 4,00,830.00. The Superintendent of Central Excise, then by letter dated 27-10-1980 addressed to the appellants intimated them that the total job work and finished products came to Rs. 24,93,502.80. Further under the provisions of Notifications No. 89/79-C.E., dated 1-3-79, appellants would be exempted upto clearance value of Rs. 15 lakhs and on the balance value of clearance of Rs. 9,93,502.80, they would be liable to pay duty at the rate of 4% ad valorem. The appellants were thus called upon to pay duty of Rs. 39,740.12. The appellants by their letter dated 4-11-1980, 24-11-80 and for 11-12-1980 for various grounds urged therein protested against the demand. In the last letter dated 11-12-1980, the appellants submitted that if their views were not acceptable they would request for issue of an appealable order from the competent Central Excise Officer after adhering to the principle of natural justice. This is how the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Dhanbad Dn. IV., Central Excise Collectorate, Patna served a notice dated 23-5-1981 on the appellants to show cause to the Collector of Central Excise, Patna why duty of Rs. 1,99,480.21 on job work of Rs. 10,48,843.87 and value of finished products amounting to Rs. 14,44,658.93 be not realised