9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue involved is same in these appeals, all the appeals are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s Iceberg Foods Ltd, 44 KM Stone, Delhi-Rohtak Highway, V&PO Rohad, Distt. Jhajjar (Haryana) is the main appellant and the other two appellants are Sh. R.S. Gupta, General Manager Finance and Sh. Dheeraj Goel, Director of the appellant's company. The issue involved in these appeals is that the main appellant is engaged in the manufacture of packaged drinking water and aerated water in their own name and also under the brand name of "Kingfisher", falling under Chapter sub-heading no. 2201.19 and 2202.20 respectively, of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and is registered with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Rule 2(i) of the SSI Exemption Notification. The department issued a show cause notice dt. 13.02.2006 to the appellants on the ground that since they have not availed the SSI exemption for their other two units located at Vasai and Jaipur and hence they were not eligible for SSI exemption for their unit located at Rohad. The case was adjudicated resulting into the confirmation of demand of Central Excise duty. The order of the adjudicating authority is as under: "1. The demand of Central Excise duty of Rs. 19,17,821/- is confirmed under proviso to Section 11A(1) of The Central Excise Act, 1944 and order recovery of the same under Section 11A(2) of the said Act. 2. Interest at appropriate rate is also imposed under Section 11AB of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity and Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) that states in para 8 thereof about in the show cause notice C.No. 7676-7678 dated 07.07.2005. The present Appeal before this Tribunal is pertaining to the same period and the fact that the Adjudication by the Tribunal has already been done for the earlier period 2003-04 and 2004-05 and the amount is also same i.e. Rs. 22,67,593/- this amount included the demand for period April to July 2005 as well. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the department had not produced any order contrary to the order of this Tribunal. The same is applicable in the case in hand being recent judgment. Para 2 of the Final Order No. 52300-52302/2015 dated 15.07.2015 judgment is reproduced as under: "2. Hea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ption of duty payment also should be for all factories of the manufacturer. We find that if the SSI exemption is to be denied to the assessee then the combined turnover of all the units of the manufacturer are to be taken and based on the aggregate value of the clearance. The proceedings are not on these lines. In fact for the year 2003-2004, the value of clearance of Jaipur unit is stated to be Rs. 6,82,584/- and for Vasai unit Rs. 20,23,374/- the value of clearance of Rohad unit for the period December, 2003 to January, 2004 is shown as Rs. 22,16,180/-. We find that if a combined reading of all the conditions of para 2 of the Notification No. 8/2003-C.E. is to be taken then aggregate value of all excisable goods cleared from one or more f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
