9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 821X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent wherein claim of Central Excise Duty has been demanded. On the basis of show cause notice, Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai has passed the Order-in-Original and the same has been challenged before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) by the respondent herein and subsequently dismissed. Against the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), A. No. E/524/2002 has been preferred before the CESTAT by the respondent herein. 3. The CESTAT, after hearing both sides and upon relying upon the relevant records, has allowed the appeal by way passing Final Order No. 1291 of 2009, dated 15-9-2009 and against which the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the Department as appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Limited as a going concern so as to become the property of the latter from the date. Further Clause B(9)(b) of the scheme says that from the transfer date viz., M/s. Vidyasagar Textiles Limited shall be deemed to have carried on and to be carrying on their business for and on behalf of and on account of M/s. Palaniandavar Cotton and Synthetic Spinners Limited until such time the amalgamation becomes effective in terms of the scheme and accordingly from the transfer date, the profit and loss of M/s. Vidyasagar Textiles Limited for all purpose be treated as that of M/s. Palaniandavar Cotton and Synthetic Spinners Limited." 5. The short point which involves in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is as to whether the Small Scale Indus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 000 an application has been given to the Registrar, so as to register the amalgamated Company. Under the said circumstances, the respondent is entitled to avail Small Scale Industry exemption till 23-9-2000 and therefore the Final Order passed by the CESTAT is perfectly correct and the same does not require any interference. 8. It is an admitted fact that after amalgamation and also after sanctioning of scheme by the High Court the Board of Directors of the respondent has passed a resolution to the effect that amalgamation shall come into effect from 1-4-2000. 9. The CESTAT has relied upon a decision wherein it has been specifically mentioned that transfer taken place on 1-4-1993, but it has been given effect only on 6-3-1994. U ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The CESTAT, without considering the fact that no specific date is available in the order passed by the High Court with regard to effect of amalgamation and also without considering the resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the respondent to the effect that amalgamation has come into effect from 1-4-2000, has erroneously allowed the appeal and thereby set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) and in view of the discussions made earlier, the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is really having merit, whereas the argument putforth on the side of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent does not hold good and further the substantial questions of law raise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
