TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 561X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly 1991. Although the dispute raised in the show cause notices was that the assessee had not produced permanent Small Scale Industries registration certificate issued by the Directorate of Industries, Delhi (which certificate is a requirement under Notification No. 175/86 for the purposes of small scale exemption), this Tribunal noted that the requirement for the said certificate would not arise in a case where a manufacturer has been availing of the exemption under this notification during the preceding financial year and therefore remanded the case with the following direction :- We, therefore, allow both the appeals and remand the matter to the jurisdictional Adjudicating Authority with the direction to determine whether the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on already availed of during a period prior to the period of the notices under consideration. 3. As against the above contention on behalf of the appellant learned SDR has submitted that the lower authorities were right in denying the exemption inasmuch as the appellant had not obtained any Central Excise license before availing of the exemption and it is settled law that in the absence of Central Excise license exemption is not available. Learned SDR has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. v. C.C.E., Pune [2004 (171) E.L.T. 296 (S.C.) = 2004 (96) ECC 118 (SC)] in support of this contention. 4. As already noted, the scope of the remand order was to determine whether the appellants have avail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case where eligibility is established. They also contended that there is no justification in demanding interest for the period prior to July, 2002. All the same, the exemption has been denied on the ground that the party would have been considered having availed small scale exemptions only if they had obtained Central Excise license which they did not. 5. The above finding was not within the scope of the show cause notices or the remand order. The factual position was that the appellant had availed of the exemption in respect of clearances made by it. No demand was also raised for denying the exemption. Instead, the adjudication order only imposed a penalty of Rs. 1000/- without disturbing the exemption availed of. That order has als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
