9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (7) TMI 828 - HC - Central ExciseSSI exemption - aggregate value of clearance - it was contended that the finding recorded by the Additional Commissioner for coming to the conclusion that the benefit of SSI exemption was wrongly claimed by the petitioner after computing and adding the aggregate value of the clearance of the goods manufactured by the loan licensee is legally not justified - Examining the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals), this Court finds that there is complete non-consideration of the six judgments which had been relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner in support of his plea for establishing a strong prima facie case - Decided in favor of assessee by way of remand to Commissioner(A)
Issues:
Challenge to order under Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in a pending Appeal under Section 35-A. Analysis: The petitioner, a company, challenged an order-in-original by the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, seeking waiver of the disputed amount under Section 35-F of the Act, 1944. The petitioner relied on six Tribunal judgments to argue that the value of goods manufactured by a loan licensee should not be added to the aggregate value of goods manufactured by the company. The Commissioner (Appeals) disposed of the Section 35-F application, requiring the petitioner to deposit 50% of the total amount within two weeks, failing which the appeal would be dismissed. The petitioner contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not consider the Tribunal judgments, which were binding, leading to an unjust conclusion that the petitioner lacked a strong prima facie case. The Court noted that the judgments were crucial and set aside the impugned order, directing the Commissioner (Appeals) to reconsider the Section 35-F application in light of the relevant judgments and the legal principles outlined in a Division Bench case. The Division Bench emphasized that if the appellant has a strong prima facie case, financial hardship is not a significant factor. The Court quashed the previous order and instructed the Commissioner (Appeals) to re-examine the application, ensuring a decision within four weeks of the order being filed before him. The writ petition was allowed with the above observations.
|
