Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2010 (12) TMI 992

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... application is submitted, it is difficult to say that the Appellant are entitled for the benefit of SSI exemption Notification from which date. As there is no evidence produced by appellant regarding date of second application, hence, the appellants are entitled for the benefit of Notification from the date of registration i.e. 31-3-88, Appellant failed to produce any evidence in support of their claim, penalty of Rs. 1.00 lakh has been imposed only on the ground that the Appellant had wrongly availed the benefit of the SSI exemption Notification. As held that the Appellant are entitled for the benefit of Notification with effect from 31-3-88, therefore no ground to interfere with the quantum of penalty imposed on the Appellant. There .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sional registration. Revenue filed the Appeal before the Hon ble Supreme Court and the Hon ble Supreme Court remanded the matter for factual verification. The judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court is reported in 2003 (153) E.L.T. 485 (S.C.) in the case of CCE v. M.P.V. Engg. Industries. The Hon ble Supreme Court decided the legal issue that the manufacturer is entitled for the benefit of the small-scale exemption Notification from the date of application for SSI registration. However, the Hon ble Supreme Court remanded the matter to verify whether the permanent registration applied on February, 1988, is in continuation of the earlier application for provisional registration on 3-12-86. The relevant part of the judgment of the Hon ble Supr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ellant could not produce any evidence that the request for provisional registration was accepted by the authorities, and also there is no evidence on record to show that the application for permanent registration made in February, 1988 is in continuation of the earlier provisional application for registration. 5. The contention of the Appellant is that the application for provisional registration was made on 3-12-86, a copy of which is on record. The application was duly received by the Department of Industries as per the acknowledgement dated 3-12-86. The contention is that thereafter, the Appellant received no information in respect of this application and subsequently, the Appellant applied for permanent registration in the month of Fe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... factual position regarding the date of application for registration by the Appellant. The Appellant claimed that they had applied for provisional registration on 3-12-86; but the Appellant failed to produce any certificate or communication from the Department of Industries that the Appellant were registered provisionally in pursuance of the application dated 3-12-86. Further, we find that the application for permanent registration does not contain any date on which the same has been signed, nor the Appellant produced any acknowledgement regarding the receipt of that application. In the application, there are specific columns for mentioning particulars of earlier registration with the Directorate of Industries. The Appellant specifically sai .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d no merit in the contention of the Appellant that they are entitled for the benefit of the SSI exemption Notification w.e.f. 3-12-86. 8. The Hon ble Supreme Court held that the manufacturer is entitled for the benefit of the SSI exemption Notification from the date of application, in pursuance to which the registration has been granted. In the present case, the Appellant produced a copy of the application- which was filed in February, 1988, on which no date has been mentioned. Even in the judgment passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court, the Hon ble Supreme Court noted that the second application was made sometime in February/March, 1988. The Certificate of Registration was granted on 31-3-88. Therefore, in absence of the date on which the a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates