TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 225X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which is owned by M/s. Priya Food Products Ltd. - Held that:- On comparison of labels of the goods manufactured by the appellant and the goods manufactured by other manufacturers, has observed that “Priya” is written in the same way on the goods of the appellant as written on the goods manufactured by M/s. Priya Food Products Ltd., - to claim benefit of a notification, a party must strictly comply with the terms of the notification. If on wording of the notification, the benefit is not available then by stretching the words of the notification or by adding words to the notification benefit cannot be conferred - in favour of the respondent-department - 47 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 27-1-2011 - Dhirendra Mishra and R.N. Chandrakar, JJ. RE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of penalty under the provisions of Rules 9(2), 52A, and 173Q of the Rules; imposition of interest under Section 11A of the Act, and recovery of mandatory penalty under Section 11AC of the Act equivalent to the amount of duty not paid etc. 3. The appellant replied to the aforesaid notice and stated that the Firm was entitled for exemption under the Notification of Annexure A/3 dated 1-4-1997, as being a small scale industry they did not cross the limit of Rs. 30 lacs, their brand name is Priya Glucose V , and not Priya which is owned by M/s. Priya Food Products Ltd., S.M. Bose Road, Agarpara, Distt. North 24, Parganas, West Bengal, and thus, they are eligible for exemption and the proceedings, proposed in the show cause notice, be d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Commissioner (Appeals-I) and order passed by the adjudicating authority was set aside, Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 2,30,102/- was confirmed, an equivalent amount of penalty under Section 11AC was also imposed and the seized goods was confiscated, and redemption fine amounting to Rs. 10,000/- was imposed in lieu of confiscation. 6. The appeal preferred by the assessee has been further dismissed by the CESTAT by the impugned order. 7. Shri Ashish Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant contended that as per Notification of Annexure A/3 dated 1-4-1997, the appellant-SSU was entitled for exemption benefit. The Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the CESTAT failed to appreciate that there was no evidence to show any connecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant as written on the goods manufactured by M/s. Priya Food Products Ltd., and confirmed the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals), by relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Mahaan Dairies (supra). The above conclusion of CESTAT confirming the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) is essentially factual. 11.The identical issue came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the matters of Mahaan Dairies and Rukmani Pakkwell Traders (supra). Referring to the notification, it was held in Mahaan Dairies (supra) thus : 8. It is settled law that in order to claim benefit of a notification, a party must strictly comply with the terms of the notification. If on wording of the notification, the benefit is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
