Per Shri P.C. Jain :

Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows:-

1. The appellant's Unit is a manufacturer of Veneer and Peeling Roller. It claimed exemption of Rs. 20.00 lakhs from payment of duty under Notification No. 175/86 dated 1.3.86 (as amended), by submitting a classification list effective from 5.12.89. The appellants did not exceed the clearance-value of Rs. 7.5 lakhs for 1988-89. The classification list was approved. It was also decided by the Assistant Commissioner that in the current financial year, the clearance-value has exceeded more than Rs. 7.5 lakhs and therefore, the exemption for the current financial year (1989-90) would not be available. The lower appellate authority upheld the aforesaid view, inasmuch as they had crossed the exemption-limit of Rs. 7.5 lakhs in the current financial year (1989-90) on 11.12.1989. Hence this appeal before the Tribunal.

2. Learned Consultant, Shri K.K. Bhattacharya submits that the appellant firm is entitled to the exemption in terms of para 4(b) of Notification No. 175/86, which stipulates that the condition of registration with the Director of Industries as a S.S.I. Unit is not necessary, if the manufacturer manufacturing specified goods in a factory had been availing of the exemption under Notification No. 175/86 during the preceding financial year. He, further, submits that during the preceding financial year, 1988-89, it was admitted on both sides that their total clearances during the said financial year, did not exceed 7.5 lakhs. Therefore, in terms of para 4(a) of the said Notification as it then existed, gave them the benefit of exemption Notification No. 175/86 because the said para 4 (a) stated that there is no need for registration with the Director of Industries provided the clearances from the factory during the preceding financial year or in the current financial year, did not exceed or is not likely to exceed Rs 7.5 lakhs. In support of this proposition, learned Consultant relies upon the Tribunal's Judgement in the case of Vikram Laminators Pvt. Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad reported in 1995 (79) ELT-147 (Tribunal). It is appropriate to reproduce para 6 of the said Judgement below:-

6. We have carefully considered the submissions. In the instant case the assessee has manufactured and cleared HDPE sacks well within exemption limit set by Notification No. 175/86, but without filing the declaration. It is apparent from the given facts that the appellants do not have a S.S.I. registration certificate in respect of their unit, hence the question to be considered in this case is whether manufacturer was availing of the exemption would depend whether it was liable to avail exemption on the basis of the conditions set out in the notification listed in para 4(b). Filing of declaration is not necessary to avail exemption in term of para 4(b) of the notification on the conditions stipulated therein that exemption is applicable if the manufacturer has been availing of the exemption during the preceding financial year. In the instant case it is clear from the facts that value of clearances did not exceed exemption limit in any of the preceding financial year as per figures furnished by the appellants and the same has not been disputed by the Department and, accordingly, they were eligible for exemption. We are not convinced with the argument advanced on behalf of the Department that exemption is not applicable since they were not availing exemption although entitled to the exemption. Tribunal has been consistently taking the view that availment of exemption notification is an independent of exemption from licensing control or filing of declaration as can be seen from the decision in the case of Accura Industries referred to by the appellants counsel as well as in the case of Mehta Gem Tools Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1993 (63) ELT 668 (Tribunal). We are of the view that non-filing of the declaration for licensin