9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 822X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore District. They held Central Excise Registration for both units. However, they surrendered the registration certificate for the second unit on the ground that they had not commenced manufacturing activity. In the premises at Survey No. 28, they started manufacturing activity from January, 2005 onwards and started paying duty from that time. The Audit of the records of the Unit was conducted. It was noticed that the Unit No. II, Survey No. 30, the appellant were carrying out manufacturing activity w.e.f. 1-4-2004 and continued it even after surrendering the Registration Certificate dated 16-7-2004. In respect of the clearances in Unit No. I, they had paid full duty. Thus, the appellant were following two different procedures in respect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to be benefit of Notification No. 08/2003. They did not violate any procedure. Even if the values of both the goods are clubbed, they would not exceed the exemption limits. As the unit is located in rural area, even in the case of branded goods, they need not have paid duty, but, in order to avoid any litigation and subsequent demand, they paid duty. The appellant produced the Tashildar s Certificate indicating that the units are in rural area. As the value of the clearances from Unit No. 1 (Survey No. 30) did not exceed the exemption limit, the appellant withdrew the registration certificate and did not file necessary declaration from 2004 onwards. Their letter stating that they did not commence manufacture relates to MF Resin (branded g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relevant years, they did not exceed the exemption limit of Rs. 1 crore. The aggregate clearances are as under : - 2004-05 Rs. 57,35,950-00 2005-06 Rs. 66,78,501-00 2006-07 Rs. 70,19,962-00 The above figures are not disputed by the Department. Even if the goods are not treated as branded goods, there is no justification at all to demand duty in respect of clearances effected from Unit-I, as the SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003 has to be considered by taking into consideration the value of both the units and only when it exceeds Rs. 1 crore, duty is demandable. Having held that the goods are not branded goods, the Additional Commissioner grossly erred in confirming the demand whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d manufactured at Survey No. 28 in Unit No. I. According to the appellant, the said goods are branded goods. However, in respect of the goods cleared from Unit No. II, the appellant did not pay any duty. The case of the Revenue is that two different procedures cannot be followed in respect of the two units belonging to the same owner. Holding such a view, duty had been demanded in respect of the clearances effected in Unit No. II denying the benefit of exemption. The appellant s contention that the goods cleared from Unit-II are branded goods and, therefore, the Notification No. 8/2003 is not applicable has not been accepted by the Original Authority and the Appellate Authority. In that case, the aggregate clearances of the units should hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
