9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 882X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the amount deposited by the appellant, if any, will remain with the department till the issue is decided by the original adjudicating authority. Appellant shall be given reasonable opportunity to present their case before the issue is finally decided. All the issues are kept open. - E/1203 to 1209/2001 - A/1064-1070/WZB/Ahd/2012 - Dated:- 30-7-2012 - M.V. Ravindran and B.S.V. Murthy, JJ. A. Sheerazi, Adv. for the Appellant S.K. Mall, AR for the Respondent B.S.V. Murthy, Technical Member 1. M/s. Solid and Correct Engineering Works, M/s. Solid Steel Plant Manufacturers and M/s. Solmec Earthmovers Equipments are partnership concerns and are inter alia engaged in manufacture of parts and components for road and civil construction machinery and equipments like Asphalt Drum/Hot Mix Plants and Asphalt Paver Machine etc. Partners of above manufacturing units were family members. M/s. Solex Electronics Equipments is a proprietary concern, and is inter alia engaged in manufacture of Electronic Control Panel Boards. Above three partnership firms and proprietary concern are hereinafter referred to as "Manufacturing units" of the Appellants in short. 2. The above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the Respondents as to why duty should not be demanded and recovered from them under proviso to Section 11A(1) of the said Act read with Rule 9(2) of the said Rules based on the allegations that the appellants had wrongly availed the benefit of the SSI exemption Notification since the appellants had affixed the brand name of " SolidMec " who was not eligible for the benefit of the said notification. The appellants were also called upon to show cause why penalty should not be imposed and interest be demanded from them under Section 11AC and 11AB of the said Act. Besides ' SolidMec ' was asked to show cause as to why duty should not be demanded on machines assembled at site. 9. The above show-cause notice was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original dated 25.01.2001 by the Respondent who confirmed the duties and imposed penalties. The respondent held that the appellants were not eligible for benefit of the said Notification since the four manufacturing units had affixed the brand name "SolidMec ". The respondent held that the goods cleared, by each of the manufacturing units was not capable of working as complete machinery but they were components/parts of the plant. It was held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal to enable it to examine the said alternative contentions. Mr. Malhotra did not have any serious objection to this course being followed. He urged and, and in our opinion rightly so, that since the Tribunal's view on the question of exemption was unsustainable the order passed by the Tribunal has to be set aside and the matter remitted back for a fresh disposal qua the said units by reference to the other contentions urged on behalf of the units which the Tribunal has not examined. In that view of the matter our answer to question No.2 is in the negative. 36. In the result we allow these appeals, set aside orders dated 19th August 2002 and 8th April 2003 passed by the Tribunal and remand the matter back to the Tribunal for passing fresh orders on the subject appropriately dealing with the alternative which the respondents may urge keeping in view of the observations made hereinabove." 12. The appellants have raised the following grounds before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which were not considered by the Apex Court and left to the Tribunal for consideration. The first ground relates to the jurisdiction for issue of show-cause notice. The second ground taken is that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court gave decision only on the use of brand name and whether process amounted to manufacture or not and specifically mentioned limitation as an issue not considered, we have accepted the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant that all other issues which were not decided by the Supreme Court are required to be considered by us in the interest of justice and fair play. 16. It was submitted that the jurisdiction of the Commissioner arises from the location where the manufacture takes place since the manufacture is the taxable event. It was also submitted that this issue was raised before Original Adjudicating Officer who disposed of the issue by observing as follows: "The contention of the noticee company that they had not supplied any such plants within the jurisdiction of this Commissioner is not having any substance in as much as the fact that the duty is liable to be recovered from them in their capacity as "manufacturer" on the marketing activities carried out by them." 17. It was submitted that in light of the decisions cited above, it was clearly stated that the show-cause notice can be issued only by the Jurisdictiona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
