9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... specified thereunder. Thus, when the recognition granted to the petitioner is conditional, in respect of any other manufacturing unit except those specified in the certificate of recognition, the petitioner would be an unrecognized institution. - Benefit of exemption denied - decided against the assessee. - Special Civil Application No. 5084 of 2004 - - - Dated:- 13-6-2012 - Akil Kureshi and Harsha Devani, JJ. Shri P.A. Jadeja for D.C. Dave, for the Petitioner. Shri P.S. Champaneri, R.J. Oza, Jitendra Malkan, Purvish J. Malkan and Darshan M. Parikh, for the Respondent. [Judgment per : Harsha Devani, J. (Oral)]. - The petitioner, a public trust as well as a society registered under the Central Societies Registration Act, 1860, has filed the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and order dated 2nd September, 2003 [2004 (178) E.L.T. 343 (Tri.-Mumbai)] passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ), whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 22nd January, 1998 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, has been dismisse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of detergent washing powder and acid slurry on the ground that the petitioner had cleared detergent powder illicitly without obtaining Central Excise Registration and without payment of duty leviable thereon. Subsequent thereto, a show cause notice dated 13th April, 1994 came to be issued to the petitioner calling upon it to show cause, inter alia, as to why the detergent powder and acid slurry placed under seizure should not be confiscated and as to why central excise duty of Rs. 22,09,785.90 should not be demanded under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) read with Rule 9(2) of the Rules along with under Rule 173-Q of the Rules. The show cause notice culminated into an order-in-original dated 22nd January, 1998 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise confirming duty demand of Rs. 22,09,785/- and ordering confiscation of the goods seized under Rule 173-Q of the Rules, redeemable on payment of a token fine of Rs. 1000/-. The Adjudicating Authority however, refrained from imposing any penalty on the unit. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal but did not succeed. 4. Mr. P.A. Jadeja, learned counsel for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Village Industries Commission, actually been using the shed and the machineries belonging to M/s. Navdeep Chemicals and M/s. Novex Chemicals without any consideration till inquiries were initiated by the department. According to the learned counsel, the factory appears to be a unit created by the manufacturers and the brand name holder of Hipolene to evade payment of duty by filing wrong declaration to the Central Excise Department and wrongly availing the exemption under the notification in question. Drawing the attention of the court to the order passed by the adjudicating authority as well as by the Tribunal it was pointed out that both the authorities below have recorded concurrent findings of the fact to the effect that in terms of the recognition given by KVIC, not only the institution which manufactures the goods has to be recognized but the unit manufacturing such goods is also required to be recognized by it. The basis for arriving at such a conclusion is the KVIC, Bombay s certificate dated 12th April, 1993 produced by the petitioner in its defence which gives recognition to the petitioner with the condition of location of units or manufacturing centres for such vil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed order has concurred with the findings recorded by the adjudicating authority and has observed thus : 2. The certificate dated 12-4-1993 issued by Khadi Village Industries Commissioner, Bombay to the Gujarat Khadi Pratishtan indicates in column 3 that previous units of the Pratishtan specified production centre. This showed various categories such as Khadi on own account, Khadi on job worker. In every one of these categories except category two, Khadi on job work, there is an against the entry in column 2. A reference is made to attached list. The attached list indicates 26 production centres and the appellant s unit did not one of them. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the certificate issued by Khadi and Village Industries Commission did not accord recognition to this unit. The contention of the representative of the appellant that the notification does not require recognition to specific unit but only to the institutions is not doubt true, but it is clear from the format of the certificate that the method of recognition by the Khadi Village Industries Commission was for specific units. It would have been a different matter if the certificate of the Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en s societies or by institutions recognized by the Khadi and Village Industries Commission or the State Khadi and Village Industries Boards or by units run with the cash assistance from District Rural Development Agencies under the Integrated Rural Development Programme. On a plain reading of the said notification, it is apparent that for the purpose of obtaining the benefit of exemption thereunder two conditions precedent are required to be satisfied, firstly, that the goods specified in the notification should be manufactured in rural areas and secondly, that such goods should be manufactured by registered cooperative societies, institutions recognized by KVIC etc. In the present case, there does not appear to be any dispute as regards the fulfilment of the first condition namely, that the requirement that the goods should be manufactured in a rural area. Insofar as second condition is concerned, it is the case of the petitioner that it is an institution recognized by KVIC. Since the certificate of registration has not been produced on the record of this court, for the purpose of examining the contents thereof, it would be necessary to rely upon the order passed by the adjudicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
