9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (12) TMI 659X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ootwear (Sports shoes) seized from the appellants' factory have been confiscated with an option to them to get the same released on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 12,000/-. 2. We have heard Shri Prantosh Mukherjee, ld. Advocate, for the appellants and Shri A.K. Chattopadhyay, ld. JDR, for the Revenue. 3. During the course of adjudication, the appellant had claimed that they were registered SSI unit and as such the benefit of Notification No. l75/86-C.E. was available to them. The duty was not being paid by them as they were claiming the exemption under the said notification. The Commissioner has denied the benefit of the exemption notification on the ground that during the period involved in the present appeal i.e. from 1989-90 up to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on would relate back to the date of commencement of production of date of issuance of registration certificate. 6. After giving our careful consideration to the matter we find that the small-scale registration authorities have certified on 23-12-1991 that the certificate would be valid unless specifically cancelled. There is also a letter from the said authorities which reads as under:- Sub: Issuance of Permanent SSI Regn. Certificate. Dear Sirs, Enclosed please find herewith SSI Registration Certificate No. SSI/336/3471/339(L)/Cal/73, dated 1st June, 1973 issued in your favour. This certificate remains permanently valid subject to the regular submission of Annual Production Returns as per enclosed proforma and unless cancelled for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation done on 23-12-1991 clearly establishes the continued small-scale status of the appellants. Accordingly we are of the view that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the small-scale Notification No. 175/86-C.E. during the period in question. 7. However we note from the chart given in the adjudication order that the value of clearances in the year 1990-91 had exceeded Rs. 15 lakhs. The appellants however challenged that the same is not the correct value adopted by the Revenue. As we have already held that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86, we direct the adjudicating authority to re-quantify the demand of duty, if any, against the appellants by allowing them the benefit of the notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
