9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (3) TMI 344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l may briefly be stated as under : 3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicle parts falling under sub-heading 8714.00 of the CETA. They were not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986, as when they applied for the Central Excise L-4 licence they declared their firm as partnership concern, whereas SSI certificate was taken in the name of sole proprietorship concern and as such the certificate was not valid for the partnership firm and they were liable to pay the duty. They were served with the show cause notice dated 4-4-1991 on the basis of their monthly R.T.12s of February, 1991 and duty demand of Rs. 22,008.68 was raised from them. They contested the correctness of the notice on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986. 8. The facts are not much in dispute. Initially the firm of the appellants was a sole proprietorship concern. The SSI certificate was issued in the name of firm M/s. Shiv Engineering Industries on 14-9-1990 as is clear from the copy of the certificate placed on the record. No doubt, later on the constitution of the firm was changed and the firm became partnership concern by the joining of another partner in November 1990 but this change was also intimated to the Directorate of Industries. The name of the firm even after its conversion from sole proprietorship to partnership concern, remained the same i.e. M/s. Shiv Engineering Industries. Even the office of the Directorate of Industries ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -7-1990 in the certificate issued by the Directorate of Industries, it was observed that SSI benefit could not be denied for the intervening period from 23-10-1989 to 20-7-1990, of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. as no change in the status/management of the company, except the name took place . Following the ratio of the law laid down in this case and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, referred to above, it must be held that the authorities below have wrongly denied the benefit of the Notification No. 175/86-CE dated 1-3-86, to the appellants for the intervening period in question. Their registration as SSI unit got made vide certificate dated 14-9-1990 in the name of the firm M/s. Shiv Engineering Industries, co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
