9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (8) TMI 280X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent. [Order per : J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)]. - The appellants were manu-facturing shoes in the factory at Ahmednagar and were availing of the benefit of the Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 as amended. Later on the department found that another unit of the same manufacturer situated at Aurangabad was manufacturing soap. When the value of the clearances of two units was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t relates to the penalty imposed upon three individuals. 2. Shri Attar stated that second unit situated at Aurangabad was manufacturing Sunlight Brand soap out of Noodles received from primary manufacturer and was clearing such soap on payment of duty. Citing judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bajrang Gopilal Gajabi [1986 (8) ECR 690], he stated that in terms of Section 2(f) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lleging suppression, Shri Attar claimed that both the units were under the same Collectorate and, therefore, the officers were deemed to be aware that two factories were belonging to the same manufacturers. The extended period, therefore, was not available to the department. 3. We have heard Shri Satnam Singh, SDR who supports the lower orders. 4. We have carefully considered the rival ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the show cause notice. In the cited judgment of the Tribunal it has been held that in terms of para 7 of the notification the goods which were manufactured in an SSI unit and affixed with brand name of another person who himself was not eligible for such benefit would be chargeable to normal rate of duty and the value of clearance of such goods would not be taken into account for the purpose of c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
