@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
1. Heard Shri A.M. Mathur with Shri C.B. Patne for the petitioner on admission.
2. This is a petition filed by a manufacturer, whose products are exigible to excise duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The petitioner claims that he is entitled to clear the goods simultaneously at a concessional rate of duty as also at the full rate of duty. The question is of interpretation of the Notification No. 65/81, dated 25th March, 1981, as amended from time to time.
3. By the said Notification the Government of India has granted exemption to the manufacturers of tyres, tubes and flaps on condition that the aggregate of the value of the said goods at the concessional rate of duty in terms of tile Notification do not exceed Rs. 75 lacs in a financial year and the aggregate value of clearances of tyres, tubes and flaps made by the manufacturers during the preceding financial year does not exceed Rs. two crores. The petitioner''s contention is that the word "first" employed in the proviso, which is preceding the word ''clearances'' is a superfluous one. According to the petitioner clearances up to Rs. 75 lacs are exempt irrespective of the fact whether they were first clearances or not. We do not agree.
4. The intention of the Government was clearly to exempt first clearances i.e. the clearances in the chronological order upto the aggregate value of Rs. 75 lacs. The intention is not to grant a total concession of Rs. 75 lacs on the goods cleared at any time during the financial year. The logic is understandable. The exemption was meant to Units whose aggregate clearances in the previous year were below two crores, which shows that the Government wanted the benefit to be taken only by small manufacturers. The exemption was to be given on first clearances i.e. in the serial order of clearances. As soon as the aggregate came to Rs. 75 lacs, the concession would automatically stop. The intention was not to give a concession of Rs. 75 lacs straightaway. The suggestion of the petitioner that he could simultaneously clear the goods on full rate of duty would militate against the plain language of the Notification. It would convert an exemption granted to first clearances in the chronological order into a concession granted on the aggregate sale during the entire financial year to be taken on such clearances as the manufacturer deems fit. This was not the intention of the Government in issuing the Notification.
5. We, therefore, do not see any merit in the case. The petitioner''s contention that in other collectorates the Notification is being interpreted in the manner in which the petitioner desires it to be interpreted, should not deter us from interpreting the provision in the correct manner. If the petitioner is aggrieved, he should follow the normal course of adjudication process under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and take the matter to the highest tribunal through the hierarchy of the adjudicatory bodies under the Act. We do not deem it to be a fit case for admission.
6. The petition is dismissed without notice to the other side.
