9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sumption by a manufacturer from one or more factories, or from a factory by one or more manufacturers does not exceed 300 lakhs in the preceding year. The value of exempted goods is not to be taken into account for calculating the first clearances of ₹ 100 lakhs. The appellant seems to be making an effort to mix both these conditions together and put forward a plea that there was a confusion whether exempted goods have to be included while calculating the aggregate clearances applicable for the preceding financial year. Moreover, the authorities below have observed that the appellant has bifurcated the exempted goods to two categories. Items like badam-summer sip and Thandai are seen declared in the ER-I return. Whereas certain oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cream etc. falling under Chapter 21 and other preparations falling under Chapter 20 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were availing SSI exemption as per Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01/3/2003 which granted exemption on first clearances upto an aggregate value of ₹ 100 lakhs made on or after first day of April in any financial year provided the conditions are satisfied. One of the condition was that the aggregate value of clearances in the preceding year should not be more than 300 lakhs. It was also provided in para 3 of the Notification that the value of clearances of exempted goods was not required to be excluded for the purpose of determining the aggregate value of clearances of the previous financial year. 2. The of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ile computing the aggregate value of clearances. This confusion was put to an end by CBEC by its Circular No. 733/49/2003-CX dated 06/08/2003. That the issue involves interpretation of Notification and that there is no suppression on the part of the appellants. Further that appellants paid duty of ₹ 16 lakhs and also ₹ 4 lakhs towards penalty. He argued that since the appellants had paid the amount even prior to the issue of show cause notice, there was no ground to impose penalty. 4. Per contra, the learned DR reiterated the findings in the impugned order and justified the impugned order. He submitted that there was no confusion or doubts regarding the interpretation of notification as contended by the appellant. The appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... benefit of the Notification. We are not able to accept this argument as it is without any merits. On perusal of both notifications we find that the clause in the Notification pertaining to calculation of aggregate value in regard to exempted goods is clearly worded and does not give reason for any doubt. The condition for availing exemption is the same in both notifications i.e., the aggregate value of clearances of all excisable goods for home consumption by a manufacturer from one or more factories, or from a factory by one or more manufacturers does not exceed 300 lakhs in the preceding year. The value of exempted goods is not to be taken into account for calculating the first clearances of ₹ 100 lakhs. The appellant seems to be ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
