Per Shri V.P. Gulati :

The issue in the appeal relates to benefit of Notification 175/86 whether the exemption to the extent of the portion of the figuring within the exemption limit of Rs 20 lacs, can be allowed.

2. The appellants are absent despite notice.

3. Shri Rama Rao, learned DR for the department pleads that the issue is covered against the assessee by the earlier decisions of this Tribunal vide order No. 2022/96 dated 12.9.96 and 2310/97 dated 12.9.97. The Tribunal had followed the ratio of the earlier decision in the later order. Paras 2, 3 & 4 of our order dated 10.9.97 are reproduced below for convenience of reference.

2. The learned JDR has pleaded that the issue stands covered by the ratio of our decision vide Order No. 2077/96 dated 12.09.96, where under similar circumstances the Tribunal has held that the full value of the machine if by addition of the same came to be exceeded will have to be taken into reckoning for charging duty. In para 6 of our order we have held as under:

6. We have considered the submissions. In order to appreciate the contentions, we find that as per the above notification, the Central Govt. exempts the excisable goods as per notification No. 1/93 it is stated that "in the case of first clearances of the specified goods upto the aggregate value not exceeding Rs. 30 lacs". Therefore, if the wordings of the notification are taken into consideration, it is clear that goods valued upto Rs. 30 lacs will get the benefit of the notification and if the goods value is above Rs. 30 lacks, the same cannot get the benefit of the notifications. The value is to be read alongwith the goods and both cannot be split into two parts. The goods with respect to which the concession is to be allowed should fall within the limit of Rs. 30 lacs and if it exceeds the limit of Rs. 30 lacs then the goods as a whole cannot be taken to be eligible to the benefit of the notification. A plain reading of the notification leads to this interpretation only, and in the scheme of the CEA, the levy is related to the goods as a whole which are under clearance. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the arguments on behalf of the appellant has no force and the appeal is therefore dismissed.

3. The learned Advocate has pleaded that inasmuch as the benefit of the concessions are based on the value of clearances and so long as they are within Rs. 20 lacs overall limit same is available, that value portion which falls short of Rs. 20 lacs limit is not to be charged to duty and duty should be charged in respect of that portion of value of a machine which exceeds the 20 lacs limit.

4. We observe that we have taken into consideration the fact that the duty is on the goods and the goods cannot be split up for the purpose of levy of duty and in this background we have held that the full unit which is chargeable to duty will have to be taken into consideration. Following, therefore, the ratio of our decision cited supra, we hold that the plea of the Revenue has to be allowed and the appeal is, therefore, allowed.

4. Following, therefore, the ratio of our earlier decisions, we hold that the appellants have been rightly denied the benefit of the Notification. The appeals are therefore, dismissed.