9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accordingly, we do not see any reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the duty and setting aside the penalty imposed as the appellant have simultaneously availed the exemption under Notification No. 08/2003-CE as well as CENVAT credit scheme which is not permissible as rightly held by the lower authority. The plea of appellant that they have no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... J dated 18.01.2008 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. None present for the appellant despite notices issued. The matter has been listed on 24.11.2015, 05.1.2016, 10.02.2016 and 27.04.2016. On all these occasions none appeared for the appellant nor there was any request for adjournment. The notices sent by the registry at the address mentioned in the appeal memorandum had not been retu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot specified under the SSI exemption Notification. A show cause notice cum demand notice was issued for recovery of duty amounting to ₹ 1,44,787/-, alleging that the appellant had wrongly availed SSI exemption under the Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.3.2003 for the said period. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed and penalty of ₹ 4,000/- imposed under Rule 27 of the Centra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cleared for home consumption. In the present case, the appellant has availed and utilized the CENVAT credit considering that their product is non-specified product under the SSI exemption during the intervening period and being non-specified product, there is no violation of the Notification. I find that, the appellant have simultaneously availed the exemption under Notification No. 08/2003-CE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, liable to be upheld. 5. The condition (iii) of Para 2 of the said Notification is very specific and the reason/cause behind its non-fulfilment, in our opinion, is irrelevant. Accordingly, we do not see any reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). 6. Consequently, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected. (Operative part o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
