9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 551X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant manufacturer who also had physical manufacturing facility and not to cases like that of appellants who had no physical manufacturing facility at any point of time but are retail traders. Held that: the exemption is available to the assessees - The lower appellate authority is correct in not including the value of clearances of ready-made garments on job work - Therefore, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal. - E/681/2004 - 958/2010 - Dated:- 7-9-2010 - Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, JJ REPRESENTED BY : Shri V.V. Hariharan, JCDR, for the Appellant. None, for the Respondent. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President]. - The assessees herein are registered merchant-manufacturer o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s only the value of clearances of the assessees themselves and not the value of clearances of readymade garments made by them on job work basis. His findings are reproduced herein below :- (i) What is required to be taken into account, as per the proviso is the value of clearance for home consumption. In April, 2001 the appellant had no clearance for home consumption; appellant s retail sale in show rooms were sale of bought out goods and was not clearance for home consumption. In excise parlance clearance for home consumption always means clearance from a factory or from any other approved place; which is not the case here. (ii) The turnover (of April-2001) sought to be added by the Revenue to reckon the aggregate value of cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ired to be included while computing the aggregate value of clearances for the year 2001-2002 to decide the status and eligibility of actual manufacturers for SSI exemption. This is the real purport and meaning of the words whether on payment of duty or otherwise occurring in the proviso and it is incorrect to mean retailer s sales turnover. The proviso will have application only to a physical manufacturer or to a merchant manufacturer who also had physical manufacturing facility and not to cases like that of appellants who had no physical manufacturing facility at any point of time but are retail traders. 3. The revenue has not satisfactorily explained as to why the above reasoning of the lower appellate authority is not sustainable. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
