9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 499X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t credit – Penalty under Rule 173Q When same manufacturer owns more than one factory whether each unit would be individually be eligible for exemptions as specified in the Notification No. 8/2000-C.E. or the exemption specified in the Notification No. 8/2000-C.E. would be available only on the aggregate value of clearances of all the units owned by the same manufacturer Held that:- When a manufacturer has more than one unit manufacturing the goods specified under Notification No. 8/2000-C.E., the clearances eligible for nil duty which are the first clearances upto Rs. 50,00,000/- from 1st April in the financial year would be the aggregate value of the clearances from all the units and not the first clearances in a financial year upto Rs. 50 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I exemption, the clearances of both the units owned by Shri Ravinder Jain would have to be clubbed together. Since, the respondent unit had availed of SSI exemption independently, the department was of the view that there was short payment of duty to the tune of Rs. 3,08,681/- during the period from August 2000 to September 2000. It is on this basis that a show cause notice dated 26-2-2001 was issued to the respondent unit for recovery of allegedly short paid duty as mentioned above along with interest and also for imposition of penalty on the appellant under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944/Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The above show cause notice was adjudicated by the Joint Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 4-4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in view of the clear provisions of Clause 2(V) of the SSI exemption notification, for the purpose of determining the applicable rate the clearances of two units will have to be clubbed together irrespective of whether the other unit is availing of SSI exemption notification or not. He pleaded, that the judgments relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) are not applicable to the issue involved in this case. 4. Shri Mayank Garg, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the respondent, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in it and cited the judgments of the Tribunal in the cases of CCE, Meerut-I v. Janardan Plywood Industries Ltd. reported in 2010 (261) E.L.T. 1019 (Tri.-Del.) and Polyinks Pvt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dispute is as to when same manufacturer owns more than one factory whether each unit would be individually be eligible for exemptions as specified in the Notification No. 8/2000-C.E. or the exemption specified in the Notification No. 8/2000-C.E. would be available only on the aggregate value of clearances of all the units owned by the same manufacturer. In this regard, Clause 2(V) of the notification states as under :- "where a manufacturer clears the specified goods from one or more factories, the exemptions in this case shall apply to the aggregate value of clearances mentioned against each of the serial numbers in the said table and not separately for each factory". 7. Thus, when a manufacturer has more than one unit manufacturing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
