Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2000 (5) TMI 377

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ompetent authority; whether the exemption under SSI notification is available on the basis that other factory of the same manufacturer is registered as SSI unit and whether the extended period of limitation is invokable in the facts of the case. Shri C. Harishankar, learned Advocate submitted that the appellants have two units located at Kirti Nagar, New Delhi and Mathura Road, Faridabad; that the Collector Central Excise under order No. 16/91, dated 2-5-91 has confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 6,10,788-87 and imposed penalty of Rs. 1 lakh denying them the exemption under Notification No. 175/86 on the ground that they were not holding SSI registration certificate from the Director of Industries for the period of demand i.e. 1-4-1986 to 3 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in a factory and has been availing of the exemption under the notification during the proceeding financial year; that as their factory at Faridabad was availing the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 their factory at Kirti Nagar is eligible to avail of the exemption in terms of proviso (b) to para 4. He emphasised that the law maker has used the word 'Manufacturer' in the said proviso and not 'Factory' and the appellants by virtue of being a manufacturer in relation to its factory in Faridabad was availing the benefit of notification and as such they can avail of exemption in respect of factory at Kirti Nagar; that proviso (b) is an exception to general rule contained in para 4 and the use of expression 'manufacturer' has to be given some m .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pellants, and therefore, ratio of the decision will not be applicable to the facts of the present matter. Regarding proviso (b) to para 4, the learned D.R. submitted that Notification No. 175/86 has to be read in its entirity and the notification provides exemption to the goods manufactured in a factory, that there is nothing in the notification to even suggest that the exemption will be available to the goods manufactured in the other factory of the same manufacturer; that the word factory mentioned in proviso (b) to para 4 means the said factory and as such the fact that their factory at Faridabad was registered as SSI unit will have no relevance for granting of exemption to their factory at Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. Finally, he submitt .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... elay in the actual issue of the certificate cannot be attributed to the assessee so as to deny it the benefit of the notification. In view of this the demand of duty on and from 31-8-87 will not survive and it is set aside. 4. Para 4 of Notification No. 175/86 provides that the exemption shall be applicable only to a factory which is an undertaking registered with the Director of Industries. Proviso (a) is an exception and the benefit of the exemption will be applicable, if the value of clearances from a factory during the preceding financial year or in the current financial year did not exceed Rs. 7.5 lakhs. Similarly proviso (b) contains another exception and the exemption shall be available in a case where a manufacturer who is manufa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nly if the specified goods manufactured and cleared in the factory had enjoyed the exemption during the preceding financial year. Such a benefit will not be extended to another factory of the same manufacturer in view of the clear language of the provision for the same reasons we do not agree with the learned Advocate that extended period of limitation will not apply as there was no ambiguity in the wordings of the proviso (b). Accordingly the demand for the period 31-8-87 is not hit by time limit as the appellants have not discharged their S3 duty liability prior to 31-8-87s and they are liable to penalty also. However, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case we reduce the penalty to Rs. 25,000/-. 5. The app .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates