9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriod 1994-95 is incorrect as even according to the order passed by the Commissioner, the total turnover of the appellant during the period 1993-94 was only ₹ 1,36,71,419/-. The appellant is entitled to the benefit of SSI exemption during the period 1994- 95 and the demand needs to be re-computed accordingly and if the demand in the show cause notice was in excess of this amount, the same needs to be reduced - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/450/2010, E/448/2010 - A/31179-31180/2018 - Dated:- 24-9-2018 - Mr. M. V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Mr. P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member (Technical) For the Appellant(s) : Shri B.N. Gururaj, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri B. Guna Ranjan, Superintendent/AR ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons were given by remanding matter to the adjudicating authority. (1) Job work done by the appellants for one M/s Tasi Plastics under Rule 57F(2) procedures and they have documents to substantiate their claim which may be considered. (2) The appellants have also undertaken trading activity value of which must be reduced from the total value. (3) The value of clearances for the year 1992-93 needs to be reduced after taking the value of clearances as cum-duty value. 3. In the impugned order the learned Commissioner has considered these aspects and has recorded his findings in Paragraph Nos.15-18 as follows: 15. Regarding trading activity, I find after examining the documentary evidence produced by the party, especially the As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f ₹ 30 Lakhs provided in the Notification No.175/86 and 1/93 has not been extended for the party nor was there any reasons mentioned for not extending such benefit for the years 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93 in the SCN 99/93-Adjn dt.23.12.1993. Hence, I agree with the party s plea for extending such benefit during these years and hence value to the extent of ₹ 30 Lakhs needs to be deducted for computation of demand 4. We find that the learned Commissioner has considered the value of traded goods and deducted the same from the demand. He has also given the benefit of the values being considered as cum-duty values. As far as the job work done for M/s Tasi Plastics is concerned, although the party submitted a copy of the permissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00/-. vi) He also imposed a penalty of ₹ 5,00,000/- on Sri K.V.V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, Managing Partner of M/s Modern Polyplast under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules. 5. Appellant is aggrieved by this order and has filed these appeals on the following grounds: (i) The denial of SSI exemption for the years 1993-94 and 1994-95 is not correct because the value of clearances during the period 1992- 93 have exceeded ₹ 200 lacs on an account of not excluding job work turnover of ₹ 20,23,500/-. (ii) The denial of exemption for the period 1994-95 is wrong as their value of clearances for the period 1993-94 was well below the limit of ₹ 200 lacs even as per the confirmed demand. 6. The appellant also prayed for co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,419/-. We, therefore, hold that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of SSI exemption during the period 1994- 95 and the demand needs to be re-computed accordingly and if the demand in the show cause notice was in excess of this amount, the same needs to be reduced. We also find no reason to interfere with the imposition of interests under Sec.11AB of the Central Excise Act. We, however, we find there is a case for reduction in the penalties imposed by the impugned order. Accordingly, we allow the appeal partly as follows: a. The demand stands modified to the extent that SSI exemption is available to the appellant for the period 1994-95. b. The interest under Sec.11AB stands correspondingly modified. c. The penalty on appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
