9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 307X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Brief facts are that the appellants are engaged in manufacture of corrugated paper boxes. On evidence gathered that they are manufacturing goods in the premises of M/s. Sri Packs, who were clearing the goods on payment of excise duty and the appellant has not been discharging excise duty on the goods cleared by them, the officers of Preventive Unit conducted i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or of M/S. Sri Packs on 10.11.2006. The appellant availed SSI exemption vide Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 1.3.2003. The earlier manufacturer/proprietor Shri D. Kalaiarasan was doing manufacturing activity in the premises only upto 9.11.2006. Vide lease deed dated 10.11.2006, the appellant had started manufacturing activities using the very same machineries. The earlier manufacturer Shri D. Kal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arances of appellant fell within the SSI limit, the appellant had not obtained Central Excise registration. There was no suppression of fact with intent to evade payment of duty. Therefore, show cause notice issued after more than a lapse of 16 months is time-barred. He relied upon the decision in the case of Venkatehwara Essence & Chemicals P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SSI exemption is not available to the appellant. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The allegation raised against the appellant is that they have wrongly availed the SSI exemption limit. It is not disputed that the appellant M/s. Sun Pack, Proprietor Shri S. Chandrasekar has started the manufacturing operations in the factory only with effect from 10.11.2006. It is also seen that they have clea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y exemption benefit. Only because the earlier manufacturer was not availing exemption benefit, the appellant cannot be compelled to pay excise duty even though the clearances are below the SSI limit. There is no case that both the manufacturers were clearing goods from the same factory during the relevant period. Thus, clause (vi) of para 2 of the Notification is not attracted in the present case. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
