9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (10) TMI 636X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Heard. 2. The appellants have got strong prima facie case. They are SSI unit and had not crossed the prescribed limit as even observed in the impugned order by the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, the stay application of the appellants is allowed. 3. With the consent of both the sides, I proceed to hear the appeal on merits also. 4. This appeal has been filed by the appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 4,20,430/-, were proposed to be confiscated and penalty was also proposed to be imposed on them. The appellants contested the show cause notice by pleading that they are SSI unit and their clearance had not exceeded the prescribed limit and as such, they were not supposed to take the Central Excise registration and file declaration under Rule 174 of the Rules. No statutory record was required to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... maintain any statutory record. However, he has further observed that that the appellants were liable to maintain some simplified records in support of their claim that they had not crossed the exemption limit. But his these observations for affirming the Order-in-original, are self contradictory. When he had come to the conclusion that the appellants had not crossed the exemption limit, and even t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch are at pages 19 & 20 of the file. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude that that the appellants were not maintaining any simplified records regarding their finished goods and raw material. Rather, it is evident that they were maintaining the records for both these goods. No discrepancies in those records were found. No allegation that they had exceeded the exemption limit, had been levelled a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
