9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 768X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is against a demand of duty of Rs. 4,85,712/- for the period 1-7-98 to 12-1-99 and penalties imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellant claimed to be entitled to SSI exemption under Notification No. 9/98-C.E., dated 2-6-1998 during the above period. In adjudication of a show-cause notice, the original authority denied t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the manufacture of specified goods in a factory taken on lease from SMZS Chemicals Ltd. They were paying rental to the leaser-company not only in respect of the factory but also in respect of the work force, electricity, water etc. which were covered by the lease arrangement. It so happened that some of the Directors of the assessee-company were related to some of the Directors of the leaser-c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onaries of the leaser-company. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant, the benefit of SSI notification would solely depend on the conditions attached thereto. In the aforesaid notification, exemption from payment of duty on the specified goods was available to the manufacturer subject to the limit prescribed thereunder. If the turnover for the financial year was within the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant for the period of dispute. 4. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), in the impugned order, chose to sustain the order of adjudication without assigning any reason. Considering the fact that the dispute relates to a very old period, we are not inclined to take recourse to a remand of this case which is otherwise warranted in this case. In this view of the matter, we set aside the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
