9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (1) TMI 187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Excise Duty upto the value of Rs. 5 lakhs, under Notification No. 71/78-CE dated 1.3.78, would be entitled separately to claim a further exemption upto Rs. 5 lakhs under the same notification. 2. Shri A.V. Phandis, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellants, stated that the appellants had purchased machinery from M/s. Gajendra Fabricators and also entered into a lease deed for using the land where M/s. Gajendra Fabricators had earlier got their factory. Thereafter, they submitted a fresh ground plan and got a new Central Excise licence for the premises. They submitted classification lists indicating that they were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 71/78 and, on this basis, not only were their classification lists ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (c) of the Notification, the appellants were not entitled for any further exemption. The appellants went in appeal before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, who dismissed the appeal on the grounds that as per clause (c) to the Notification No. 71/78 where a factory producing the specified goods in run at different times of any financial year by different manufacturers, the value of the specified goods so cleared from such factory in any such year at nil rate of duty shall not exceed Rs. 5 lakhs. He also pointed out that there was no evidence produced by the appellants that the old machinery installed by M/s. Gajendra Fabricators was dismantled and new machinery had been installed in its place. Shri Phandis stated that the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further stated by the appellants that the demand has been confirmed under provisions of Section 11 A, when the show cause notice was issued on 27th June, 1980 when the said section had not taken effect. It is urged that the recovery procedure ought to have ceased with the deletion of Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Shri Phandis stated that the decision taken by CEGAT in the case of Government Ceramic Service Centre, Cannanore v. Collector of Central Excise, Cochin, Order No. 285-D/83 dated 17th May, 1983 (1983 E.L.T. 1215 = 1983-II ETR 220), clearly supports the appellants case in the matter. 3. Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, learned S.D.R., has reiterated before us the views expressed in the Order-in-Appeal. He has said that insofa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the partnership firm to a private limited company, it cannot be said that clearances were not from the same factory. The words used in clause (ii) of para 5 of the notification extracted above are clear enough on the point that the aggregate value of clearances to be determined taking into consideration the clearances by or on behalf of one or more manufacturers. The clearances made both by the registered partnership firm and the private limited company would have to be clubbed together for determining the limit for claiming concession under the subject notification. There is no dispute that if the clearances made by the firm-partnership and the private limited company are clubbed together the limit is exceeded. The concession under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
