9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (1) TMI 382X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 1 at Samaipur and Unit No. 2, Libaspur, Delhi; that the Unit No. 1 was registered SSI Unit and it started functioning from 1979 and has been availing the benefit of different exemption Notification under the Central Excise Law; that the Unit No. 2 was started in 1988 at Siraspur and subsequently shifted to Libaspur; that unit No. 2 was having a provisional SSI Registration from 8-4-1988 and availed of the exemption under Notification No. 175/86 dated 1-3-1986; that the classification lists for the period 5-4-1988 and 1-4-1989 were approved by the Department; that after visit of their unit No. 2 on 7-1-1992, a show cause notice dated 30-3-1993 was issued to the applicants alleging that during the period 1988-92, they had shown certain clea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 23-3-1999, rejected their appeal, holding that as they had shifted their Unit No. 2 and a fresh classification list was not filed at New address, it could not be said that the Appellants had been extended the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 for Unit No. 2 at Libaspur during 1989-90; that accordingly by virtue of clause 4(a) of Notification No. 175/86 , they were ineligible for the exemption during 1990-91 and 1991-92. 3. Shri K.K. Anand, Learned Advocate, further submitted that the demand for the year 1988 had already been dropped by the Assistant Collector under order in original No. 9/90 dated 15-1-1990 on the basis of provisional SSI Certificate; that the provisional certificate was valid up to 12-4-1990 and the classificati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arances of Unit No 2. that it is not known whether the permission to work under Rule 56B of the Central Excise Rules was valid during the relevant period; that Shri Kalipat Dev, Proprietor, in his statement mentioned that the permission was not renewed in 1988. In reply, the learned Advocate for the Appellants submited that for the purpose of computing the aggregate clearance for the purpose of Notification No. 175/86, they are clubbing the clearances of both the units and as such there is no force in the allegation that the clearances of Unit No. 1was shown as clearances effected from Unit No. 2. He finally mentioned that the permission under Rule 56B was granted to them for a period of 5 years under Assistant Collector s letter dated 21-5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as held that since the appellant must be regarded as having availed benefit of the Notification for the year 1988-89, by virtue of proviso(b) to para 4 of the Notification, appellant would be entitled to the benefit of the Notification for the year 1989-90. 6. The benefit of the Notification No. 175/86 cannot be denied on the ground that there was no approved classification list in respect of Unit No. 2 at Libaspur. The availability of the benefit of a notification depends on the eligibility of the manufacture and is not dependent on filing of classification list. Further, it is not a disputed fact that the classification list was filed for 1989-90 for Unit No. 2 by them and approved by the Department. The Commissioner has disregarded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
