9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 921X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds manufactured by that manufacturer in one or more factories and cleared for home consumption during the previous financial year is within the specified threshold limit, which during the period of dispute was Rs. 3,00,00,000/- (Rupees Three crores). In this case, it is undisputed that the respondent i.e. chemical division of M/s. Premium Suitings (P) Ltd. is part and parcel of the main manufacturer engaged in manufacture of textiles and, therefore, the respondent unit i.e. chemical division of M/s. Premium Suitings (P) Ltd. cannot be looked at in isolation for the purpose of determining its eligibility for SSI exemption and for this purpose, the clearances for home consumption of all excisable goods of the respondent unit have to be clubbe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) Ltd., UPSIDC Industrial Area, Jainpur, Kanpur and as such the aggregate value of the clearances of all excisable goods for home consumption from one or more factories of the respondent during the previous financial year were in excess of the threshold limit of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- (Rupees Three crores), they would not be eligible for SSI exemption. On this basis, 7 show cause notices were issued to the respondent for different periods for demand of short paid duty amounting to Rs. 4,04,172/- along with interest and also for imposition of penalty. The show cause notices were adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner by a common order-in-original dated 27-4-2001 by which holding that the respondent is only a division of the main manufacturer M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n this basis, during the entire periods from 1997-1998 to 1998-1999 and 1999-2000, the respondent would not be eligible for SSI exemption, that just because Central Excise registration is different for chemical division, the respondent cannot be treated as a separate and independent entity, that the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rollatainers Limited v. CCE, Delhi-III reported in 2004 (170) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.) relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not applicable to the facts of this case and that in view of this, the impugned order is contrary to the provisions of law and is not sustainable. 4. Shri Aditya Kumar, Advocate, along with Shri Vipul Jain, Director of the respondent-company, while defending the impugned order cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
