Per Shri P.C. Jain :

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

1.1. The respondent herein is a manufacturer of excisable goods registered with the concerned State Authority as a S.S.I. Unit since 2.12.77. Location of their factory noted in the said Certificate issued by the Director of Industries was at 63, Shamnagar Road, Calcutta 55. Later on, the respondent started a new factory at 90, Nayapatty Road from 1.4.81. They had been working after duly taking a Central Excise licence from the Central Excise authorities and under the S.S.I. exemption Notification 105/80 and Notification 77/83. Later on, in view of the Notification 175/86, they were required to get the address of their new factory at 90, Nayapatty Road incorporated in the said certificate already issued to them. That new factory's addressed was incorporated on 12.7.90 according to the Revenue. At a glance, the certificate indicates that the date of registration of the new factory also continues from 2.12.77 as also mentioned above, in respect of the old factory, the new address was changed in the said certificate. Revenue had denied the benefit of Notification 175/86 for the period prior to 12.7.90 on the ground that this new factory has been registered only from that date. The lower appellate authority accepted to allow the Appeal of the respondent herein that the date of registration in the certificate continues to be 2.12.77; only the factory addressed has been changed. It is against the aforesaid order of the lower appellate authority that the Revenue has now filed an Appeal.

1.2 It has been held by the ld. JDR that the benefit of exemption Notification 175/86 could be granted to the respondent with effect for 12.7.90 only inasmuch as the address of the new factory has been incorporated in the SSI registration certificate from the said date.

2. As against the aforesaid contention of the ld. JDR, ld. advocate, Shri P.R. Mukherjee submits that the certificate of registration is still on 2.12.77. That has not been changed. Only the factory address has undergone a change after closure of the old factory and opening of the new factory. The impugned order is, therefore, correct in law. This is also in accordance with the Circular of the CBEC relied upon by the lower appellate authority, submits the ld. advocate. Apart from the foregoing, ld. advocate relies on the Tribunal's judgment in the case of Collector of Central Excise Vs. S.K. Engineering and Trading Co. Ltd. reported in 1993 (68) ELT 240 which dismissed the Appeal of the Revenue as is the case here on similar facts and circumstances of the case.

3. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. We agree with the submission of the ld. advocate for the respondent. Consequently, we do not find any substance in the Appeal of the Revenue. Hence we reject the same following the Tribunal's judgment in the case of S.K. Engineering mentioned (supra).