9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1750X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the 'Act') by invoking the extended period along with interest under Section 11AB of the Act and equal penalty under the provisions of Section 11A(1A) of the Act. The adjudicating authority also imposed penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on the other appellant, Shri Anuj Lodha, under Rule 26(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The impugned order has been passed by the adjudicating authority in terms of CESTAT remand order No. A/51996-51997/2017-EX(DB) dated 28.2.2017 wherein the case was remanded back to the original adjudicating authority with following observations : "We have considered the submissions of both the sides. It is fact that the issue is regarding the eligibility to avail benefit of exemption notification 08/2003-CE. One of the clauses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facturer (OEM) of M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. as per agreement dated 1.12.2006 between them. As they were using the brand name of M/s Mahindra & Mahindra, as per the Revenue they were not entitled for the benefit of SSI notification. However, the appellant was of the view that their factory is situated in the rural area as defined in Notification No. 8/2003 they are entitled for SSI benefit, even while using the brand name Powerol belonging to M/s Mahindra & Mahindra. In the initial adjudication, this issue regarding rural area was not raised before the adjudicating authority, however, the same was agitated before this Tribunal, which remanded the matter back to the original adjudicating authority. The contentions raised by the appellant a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned Advocate that the impugned order is not sustainable and liable to be set aside. 4. Learned DR on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings contained in the impugned order. 5. Heard the parties and considered the appeal record and the other evidences placed before the bench at the time of hearing including certificate issued by the Tahsildar regarding the appellant's unit being situated in rural area. The learned adjudicating authority has not accepted the certificate issued from the Tahsildar regarding the appellant's factory being situated in rural area considered the other evidences as contained in para 8.6 of the impugned order which is reproduced as under: "8.6 It is imperative to examine relevant provisions and quote from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sued by the Tahsildar, who is the competent person to certify the same. This Tribunal has occasion to examine this issue vide the various decisions referred in para 3 above. We find that in this case the certificate has been issued by the Sarpanch and Tahsildar regarding the factory being located in the rural area the same cannot be ignored while deciding the eligibility for the benefit of Notification No. 8/2003-CE. While holding so, we rely on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Sanchez Healthcare P. Ltd. (supra), wherein para 3 of the order of the Tribunal has held as under: 3. After considering the submissions, we are not impressed with the reason stated by the lower appellate authority for not admitting the Tahsildar's certi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
