9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1077X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave crossed the threshold aggregate clearance value of Rs. 4 Crores. 2. Shri S. J. Vyas Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that during 2007-2008 on 31.03.2007 they have paid the duty of consignment of Spin Flash Dryer on the value of 29,85,000/- which was considered as the clearance upto 31.03.2007 against the total value of Rs. 29,85,000/-. The machine was removed and some of the consignments were cleared after 31.03.2007. It is his submission that since the entire duty was paid on or before 31.03.2007 and consignment of Spin Flash Dryer some part of the machine even though cleared after 31.03.2007 its clearance should be considered in the year 2006-2007. To that extent, the value during the year 2007-2008 will stan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, the physical clearance made from the factory should be considered as clearance of the goods for the purpose of calculating the aggregate value of Rs. 4 Crores in the financial year. Therefore, the appellants are not eligible for SSI exemption as the aggregate value has crossed Rs. 4 Crores during the period 2007-2008. As regard the submission of removal of parts as such, he pointed out that this aspect has been considered by the Adjudicating Authority. According to which the adjudicating authority has accepted the value of Rs. 9,32,665/- of parts and Rs. 1,19,044/- of export and thereafter held that still the value exceeded Rs. 4 Crores. 4. We have carefully considered the submission made by both sides and perused the records. We fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s such. This aspect needs verification by the adjudicating authority. As regard the submission of the Ld. Counsel regarding the imposition of penalty under Section 11 AC, we find that the appellant have declared payment of duty as on 31.03.2007 in the invoice as well as in the monthly returns. The demand was also raised in the normal period of one year. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that there is a suppression of fact on the part of the appellants. Accordingly, we are of the view that the penalty under Section 11 AC should not have been imposed. Hence, the same is set-aside. For the same reason, the penalty on Director is also not justified, accordingly the penalty imposed under Rule 26 on the Director is also set-aside. As rega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
