9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (6) TMI 176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... movable items, value of the movable items manufactured by them fall within the SSI exemption limits – therefore, items manufactured by the appellants cannot be charged to excise duty - there is no justification for imposition of any penalty - E/284/2006 - 916/2008 - Dated:- 24-6-2008 - Dr. S.L. Peeran, Member (J) and Shri T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T) S/Shri K.S. Ravi Shankar and N. Anan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting authority demanded a duty of Rs. 31,76,565/-. He imposed penalties also. The appellant is aggrieved over the impugned order and has come before this Tribunal for relief. According to the appellants most of the items manufactured by them after immovable and they could not be considered as excisable goods. On this ground alone, it was submitted that the impugned order is untenable. Reliance was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and the ground and they cannot be considered as furniture in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court. The items are work stations/partitions/wall panelling etc. As regards the movable items, the appellants showed that they all would come within the SSI exemption limits. Further, the appellants made the point that in the light of the Board's Circular dated 15-1-2005 and also the decided ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 72/-. In the year 2001, the value comes to 44,000/- and in the year 2001-2002 it comes to Rs. 4,47,050/- whereas during those periods the exemption limit was up to Rs. 50,00,000/-. In view of this, we are convinced that the items manufactured by the appellants cannot be charged to excise duty. Moreover, there is no justification for imposition of any penalty. In view of this, we set aside the impu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
