9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 350X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CISE, JODHPUR-I [ 2021 (6) TMI 1034 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] where it was held that it is not possible to agree with the contention of the learned Chartered Accountant for the appellant that the appellant was eligible for the benefit of exemption notification even though it had no BIS certificate, because the certificate was issued much later in 2014 which means that their products met the standards of BIS all through - since the appellant does not have ISI certification to conform the BIS Standard, the appellant is not eligible for SSI exemption Notification No. 8/2003-CE. Cum-duty price claimed by the appellant - HELD THAT:- As of now the issue has been settled that in any case where the duty is demanded, the principle of cum-duty pric ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appeared on behalf of the appellant. From the record it is observed that this matter was earlier listed on 29.08.2022, 28.09.2022 and on 01.11.2022. On two occasions, none appeared and on the last occasion the assessee sought adjournment. Today neither any adjournment request nor anyone appeared therefore, the appeal is taken up for disposal. 3. Shri Kalpesh P Shah, learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the impugned order. He submits that there is mandatory requirement for exemption under SSI notification that power driven pumps should conform to BIS standard. In the present case, admittedly there is no ISI certification to confirm BIS standard as required for allowing the exemption notification. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der BIS i.e. they have not obtained ISI Certification for their product. According to Sr. No. (xi) of Annexure to Notification No. 08/2003- CE dated 01.03.2003 the benefit of said notification is not available to such pumps .Accordingly we are of the view that the appellant is not entitled for exemption Notification No. 08/2003- CE dated 01.03.2003 hence demand was correctly confirmed. Accordingly, the demand along with interest is upheld. As regard the equal penalty imposed by the lower authority under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 we find that the appellant has not been extended the option of reduced penalty of 25%. Accordingly, the penalty under Section 11 AC stands reduced to 25% subject to payment of duty and interest an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
