9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the period from 1.9.2003 to 31.3.2004, the total clearance value of the appellant still is less than 30 lakhs which is the threshold limit. Same is the case in respect of the period 1.4.2004 to 8.7.2004. If the entire clearance during the period in question is less than the threshold limit, there cannot be any duty liability on the appellant as has been held by the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Kan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommon order. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. On perusal of the records, we find that the issue that falls for consideration in these appeals is whether the appellant is required to discharge the differential central excise duty demanded and confirmed by the lower authorities. The appellant had claimed the benefit of Small Scale Industries Exemption Notification No.34/2003 as amen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se in respect of the period 1.4.2004 to 8.7.2004. If the entire clearance during the period in question is less than the threshold limit, there cannot be any duty liability on the appellant as has been held by the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Kanpur vs. A.K. Chemicals (P) Ltd. reported in 2011 (263) ELT 97, wherein it was held that if intermittently central excise duty is paid, it would not amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
