TMI Blog1987 (11) TMI 198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... read with Notification No. 128/77, dated 18-6-1977 based on their installed capacity being less than 2000 metric tonnes. The appellants are stated to be a small scale industry. On check of the stocks of goods manufactured by them, some discrepancies were found with reference to stocks as show in the statutory RG-1 Register. The lower authority held 76 reels as having been removed without payment of duty and also held against them that they were not keeping records properly and a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed, 181 reels held to have been not accounted for properly, were confiscated with redemption fine of Rs. 2,000/- and duty on 76 reels held to have been removed without payment of duty was demanded. It is seen that the appellants befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... because Para 2 of the Notification No. 128/77 lays down that the provisions of the said Notification 128/77 shall not apply to a manufacturer of paper who avails the exemption under Notification No. 80/80, dated 19-6-1980. Further as per the reply to the show cause notice M/s. Shri Hari Ram Paper Mills commended production in September, 1981 and took out a Central Excise Licence. In this context Para 3 of Notification No. 80/80, dated 19-6-1980, as amended, is relevant and it reads as follows : Where a manufacturer has not cleared any specified goods in the preceding financial year, or has cleared any such goods for the first time on or after the 1st day of August in the preceding financial year, the exemption contained in this notifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fication. He pleaded that the appellants had filed a refund claim in respect of duty paid by them in a separate proceeding on the plea that they were eligible for the benefit of Notification No. SO/SO and this was rejected by the Assistant Collector, but on appeal, the Collector (Appeals) has upheld their claim to the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 80/80. He stated that the Department has not filed any appeal against this order of the Collector (Appeals) and that the eligibility of the appellants to the benefit of Notification No. 80/80 can be taken to have been accepted by the revenue. 4. Learned JDR for the Department, Shri Sunder Rajan, had no specific plea to make against the averments made by the appellants and stated th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he specific goods as covered under Notification No. 80/80 indicating the quantum thereof likely to be cleared in the year and thus enabling the Department to exercise whatever check they would like to do in regard to the activities of the manufacturer. In this case, the appellant having functioned under regular Central Excise control can be deemed to have therefore complied with the requirements of the declaration. As it is the order of the Collector (Appeals) holding that the benefit of Notification No. 80/80 was available to the appellants has not been challenged by the authorities. In view of this, we hold that the appellants were all along eligible for clearance of the goods under Notification No. 80/80 and in view of the value of the g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
