1. The Revision Application u/s. 36 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 against order No. 436/76 (M) C. No. V/68/45/76 dt. 30-5-1980 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Madras, has been transferred by tie Government of India to the Tribunal for disposal in terms of Sec. 35P (2) of the Act.
2. The Appellants manufacture Ambar Charkhas and spare parts in the factory where they employ more than 0 workers and use power. On 1-3-75 Tariff item No. 68 covering all other goods not otherwise specified was introduced into the first Schedule of the Central Excises Act and this factory came under its purview. On 3-6-75 they attached a certificate dated 23-5-1975 from the Director (Cotton Khadi) of the Khadi & Village Industries Commission No. CKH/Inst/St-75-76 dated 23-5-76 to the effect that the weaving implements and spares manufactured by the firm are as per the specific orders of the Khadi & Village Industries Commission and come within the provisions of the Act, (Act No. 1 of 1944) and claimed that their products were exempted from payment of 1% excise duty. They were informed that as the firm is not a village industry, the products of only which industries are exempt from duty, they were not entitled to the benefit of notification No. 116/75. They persisted and after a personal hearing, the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore, I Division, held that the firm is not a village industry as it is situated in Coimbatore town and they are not exclusively manufacturing Ambar Charkhas. Therefore, they are not entitled to the said exemption and are liable to pay duty of 1% under T.I. No. 68 for the products manufactured by them and supplied to the Khadi & Village Industries Commission.
3. The Appellate Collector referred to notification No. 116/75 and held that the Khadi and Village Industries Commission has to certify that the products are genuine products of the village industry specified or deemed to be specified in the Schedule to the K. & V.I.C. Act, 1956, and that the products are marketed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The certificate furnished does not either certify that the product is of a village industry or that the goods are marketed in accordance with the Act. He, therefore, upheld the order of the Assistant Collector.
4. In the present application it is contended that the order-in-appeal is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case and the reasons for rejecting the exemption claimed are unsound and untenable. The Appellate Collector failed to note that the K. & V.I.C..
is a statutory body and has granted the certificate but no opportunity was given to produce an appropriate certificate as required by the notification. He failed to note that the entire stock of Ambar Charkhas is manufactured against orders of the Commission and supplied only to it; that it is a genuine product of a village industry and that it is marketed in accordance with the provisions of the Act, The fact that the certificate clearly states that the items are exempted under T.I.68 pre-supposes that the Commission is satisfied about the genuineness and the Appellate Collector has erred in rejecting the exemption merely on the language. Moreover, the demand itself under Rule 10A was deleted and he failed to notice this.
5. This appeal was originally dismissed in default on 8-6-1983 but was restored and heard on 24-8-1983. Shri Sathindran reiterated these contentions and stated a sister concern had been given relief by the Government of India in Order No. 263 of 1982 dated 19th April, 1982.
Since this was an identical case that decision may be made applicable here as a proper certificate dated 29-5-1980 from the Director, Khadi & Village Industries Commission has been produced.
6. Shri Lakshmi Kumaran argued that the Khadi & Village Industries Commission is required to certify that the products to be exempted are the genuine products of a village industry specified or deemed to be specified in the schedule to the K&VIC Act and are marketed in accordance with the provisions of that Act, and he was not sure of the competence of the Director to certify that the products manufactured by the appellants are deemed to be specified in the Schedule.
7. In view of the order of the Government of India cited by the appellant accepting a certificate from the Director, Khadi for the purposes of the notification, the Tribunal sets aside the order of the Appellate Collector and refers the case back to him for a de novo decision.