9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 329X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93-CE dated 28.02.1993? - Held that: - reliance placed on the judgement of the case of Vir Rubber Products PO Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III [2015 (4) TMI 353 - SUPREME COURT], whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the appellant is entitled for exemption Notification No. 1/93-CE dated 28.02.1993 as amended by Notification No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otification No. 1/93-CE dated 28.02.1993 as amended based on their turnover. They were clearing some of their goods under own brand name Vir by availing the said exemption. The appellant was also manufacturing original equipments for Automobiles Manufacturing units and effecting such clearances as branded goods on payment of full rate of duty without availing concessional rate. They were putting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the value thereof is includable in overall aggregate value of ₹ 3 crores. Therefore after crossing the aggregate value of ₹ 3 crores, the appellant was not entitled for the SSI exemption. Aggrieved by the adjudication order, the appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal b; Order No. 1277-A/20003-WZB/C-II dated 10.06.2003 held that the goods manufactured for O.E. is not b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order the appellant is before us. 2. None appeared on behalf of the appellant despite notice. On perusal of grounds of appeal, we observed that the appellant has sought relief on the limitation. 3. Shri N.N. Prabhudesai, learned Superintendent (AR.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. On careful consideration of the submission made by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
