2003 (7) TMI 543

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ri A. Chopra, D.R., for the Appellant. Shri M.H. Patil with Arun Mehta, Advocates, for the Respondent. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. After hearing the argument on the application for rectification of mistake by the Commissioner, we recall our earlier order and having heard the departmental representative and Counsel for the applicant on the appeal, proceed to dictate our o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and imposed penalty. 3. It has to be accepted that a mere provisional certificate is not conclusive evidence of the fact that the appellant was a small-scale industry. A provisional certificate is just that a temporary recognition of the appellant states and unless it is confirmed by issue of a final or a regular certificate would not be sufficient authority for recognising the appellant as a s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n that the value of investment in the plant and machinery of the appellant they exceeded the limit prescribed by the authorities competent to grant the recognition of the small-scale industry also is not acceptable. Notification 175/86 does not contain anywhere in it any department about the maximum level of plant and machinery. This is the requirement only of the State Government authority for gr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X