TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 442X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufacture Oxygen and Nitrogen gases filled in cylinders falling under sub-heading Nos. 2804.11 and 2804.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act respectively; that the appellants were initially registered as a medium scale industry with the Directorate General Technical Development (DGTD) under registration dated 16-7-85; that since the installed plant and machinery was less than Rs. 35 lakhs they got their registration as medium scale industry cancelled and obtained SSI registration certificate dated 7-12-90 from the General Manager, District Industrial Centre in Himachal Pradesh; that this registration certificate was valid from the date of commencement of p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Department suspected about the value of plant and machinery. Finally, he relied upon the decision in the case of CCE, Indore v. Dhar Cement Ltd., 2000 (121) E.L.T. 720, wherein it was held that once the assessee produced proof of licensed capacity it was not open to the Revenue to deny the benefit of the notification by substituting his own concepts for the expression licensed capacity in the notification. The learned Advocate also mentioned that as far as the charge of suppression of production is concerned he is not challenging the same. 3. Countering the arguments, Shri Jagdish Singh, learned DR, submitted that it is not in dispute that the appellants unit was registered with the DGTD since July, 1985; they had applied for SSI re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r they were admittedly registered with the DGTD during the relevant time and not with the Director of Industries. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. The period involved in the present matter for which the demand has been confirmed is from 1987-88 to 1989-90. The demand has been confirmed on the ground that the appellants had deliberately suppressed the production which has not been challenged in the present proceedings. It has also not disputed by the appellants that they were registered with DGTD as a Medium Scale Industry during the relevant period. Paragraph 4 of the Notification No. 175/86 provides as under :- The exemption contained in this notification shall be applicable only to a factory which is an undert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion it was not registered with the Director General of Technical Development. The case of the appellants is not covered by the proviso since it has not been claimed by them that their clearances during the preceding financial year or financial year for which demand has been confirmed did not exceed Rs. 7.5 lakhs. They have also not claimed that they were availing the benefit of this notification or any of the specified notification during the preceding financial year. On the other hand they fall within the exception mentioned in clause B of proviso to paragraph 4 inasmuch as they were registered with the DGTD. The learned Advocate for the appellants have not controverted the submissions made by the learned DR that they had not even appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
