I.J. Rao, Member (T)

1. These are revision applications filed before the Central Government which, under Section 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962, stand transferred to the Tribunal to be disposed of as if they were appeals presented before the Tribunal.

2. Both the appeals arise out of the above mentioned two orders passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Meerut.

3. In Appeal No. 153/82 against Order No. 9-Add. Collr./l982 dated 18-9-82, the Additional Collector besides demanding duty on excess clearances effected by the appellant and detailed in the show-cause notice imposed a penalty of Rs. 7,000/-. In Appeal No. 154/82 the Additional Collector besides demanding duty of Rs. 69,193.15 P imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000 on the appellant.

4. The issue being common in both the matters, we heard the appellant in both the appeals. Briefly stated, the facts are that the appellant manufactures switch boards control and relay panels, motor control centres etc., falling under item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. In terms of Notification No. 89/79-CE dated 1-3-1979 which was superseded by Notification No. 105/80-CE dated 9-6-1980, exemption from duty was granted in respect of the first clearance of goods for home consumption up to a value not exceeding Rs. 30 lakhs (in respect of the period 19-6-1980 to 31-3-1980 the limit of Rs. 30 lakhs was reduced to Rs. 24 lakhs). The clearances by the appellant as submitted in the appeal were as follows ;

xxx xxx xxx

5. The argument of the appellant is that the goods cleared for export should not be taken into consideration in view of the clear wording of the notification and only the value of the goods cleared for home consumption should be considered to decide whether or not they exceeded the limits of clearances laid down by the notifications as condition of eligibility. Arguing on the basis of the details extracted above, the appellant submitted that in the year 1-4-1980 to 31-3-1981 the total clearances for home consumption were considerably less than the limits laid down by the notification and that, therefore, they were entitled to duty free clearances. The Additional Collector held as follows;

"The word home consumption used in the Notification is related to the manufacturer of the goods. In so far as M/s. International Minelmech Pvt. Ltd. are concerned at the point of clearance of the goods they have cleared goods to M/s. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. in India. Whether these goods would be ultimately exported wholly, partly or may eventually not be exported at all is not known at that particular point of time. If M/s. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. have exported these goods it is for them to claim rebate of the Central Excise duty paid for the exports made by them. Notification No. 105/80 dated 19-6-1980 stipulates only those exports which are directly made by the assessee under regular export procedure. In other words, such exports have to be made directly from the factory premises under normal export procedure. In this case, no such procedure was followed by Minelmech (P) Ltd.

In view of the above, the party's contention that the value of the goods manufactured by them and exported by M/s. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. should not be included for computing the exemption limit cannot be accepted."

6. In the appeal and before us the appellant submitted that the wording of notification No. 105/80-CE was quite clear and only the value of the goods cleared for home consumption should be taken into consideration. They further submitted that goods valued at Rs. 23,02,195 supplied by the appellant to M/s. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. were clearly and specifically for export and submitted a statement (Annexure 'F' to the appeal certified by M/s. Ballarpur Industries Ltd.) that these goods were so supplied by the appellant. They also submitted the following documents in support of their claim that the goods supplied by them to M/s. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. were for the purpose of export and were so expor