9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 779X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have filed declarations at the beginning of their operations with the department. Therefore, there was no suppression with intention to evade the duty, hence the demand is barred by limitation. Appeal allowed on merits as well as on limitation. - APPEAL NO. E/3314-3319/2000 - ORDER NO. A/86318-86323/2018 - Dated:- 11-5-2018 - HON BLE SHRI ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON BLE SHRI C J MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri H.G. Dharmadhikari, Advocate Shri Sanket S. Lele, Advocate for Appellants Shri A.B. Kulgod, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary: All these appeals are challenging the common Order-in-Appeal Nos. AB(306 to 311)/15 to 20/M-VI/2000 dated 28.07.2000 upholding the Order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s are installed in the factory: Hand sharing machine Drilling machine Welding machine Bending machine M/s Mefco Partnership firm having the partners Mr. T.R. Musale and Mrs. Irene Sridharan formed in the year 1985 situated in adjoining gala to premises no. 247, Majiwada road, Majiwada Thane 400 601. The firm has separate registration of sales tax and income tax and used to get goods manufactured on job work basis. The raw materials were purchased in own name. 3. The appellant firms have filed their declarations to the department claiming the exemption to the specified goods from payment of excise duty as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed the aforesaid appeals against the said order. 6. Shri H.G. Dharmadhikari, Advocate and Shri Sanket S. Lele, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted their written synopsis. In the verbal arguments the learned Counsel submitted that the appellants had no intention to evade the duty since whatever duty is payable was available to the customer of the appellants voltas by way of MODVAT credit. Since, the items manufactured by the appellants falling under Chapter 84 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 are appearing in the annexure of inputs in the MODVAT credit Notification No. 177/86 and as amended by Notification No. 5/94. In the said notification the Chapter 84 is also appearing in description of final products also. 7. Furthe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atore Engineering Works Vs. CCE, Coimbatore 2009 (239) ELT 366 (Tri.-Chennai) (v) Super Star Vs. CCE, Calicut - 2002 (148) ELT 854 (Tri.-Bang.) (vi) Goldensun Laboratories Vs. CCE, Surat-I - 2002 (145) ELT 430 (Tri.-Mum) (vii) Naresh Shroff Prop. Uni-offset Printers Vs. CCE, Printers 1997 (92) ELT 180 (Tri.) (d) Demand barred by Limitation. As stated in the facts of the case that all the units have filed their declarations to the department which have been duly scrutinized by the department. This clearly indicates that none of the appellants had any intention to suppress the facts. Moreover, the Range Officer of all the appellants was the same and were informed and thus it was in knowledge of the department. Theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re. Whereas in case of the appellant all the units are located at different premises having separate sets of machinery and registration of Sales Tax and Income Tax. Therefore, those judgments do not cover the appellant s case. 10. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. 11. We find that the Notification of exemption No. 75/87 to the parts of refrigerators and air conditioners, if produced by small scale units, is squarely applicable to the products manufactured by the appellants. 12. On perusal of the records, we find that the appellants had submitted the declarations and the appellants are separate legal entities having independent existence and different locations with separate infrastructure. 13. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
