Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Premium Suiting (P) Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise

2015 (12) TMI 232 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

SSI exemption - Availment of concessional rate as per Notification No.7/97-CE dated 1st March, 1997, Notification No.38/97-CE dated 27th June, 1997, Notification 9/98-CE dated 2nd June, 1998 and Notification No.9/99-CE dated 28th February, 1999 - Clubbing of clearances - Held that:- Manufacturer is entitled for exemption if the aggregate value of clearances of all excisable goods for home consumption from one or more factories or from a factory by one or more manufacturers does not exceed ₹ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ot exceed ₹ 3 crores. Since the appellant has another factory, which is manufacturing an excisable commodity, its clearances have to be added while considering the exemption notification. Since the aggregate clearances exceeded the limit of ₹ 3 crores, the appellant was not entitled for exemption. The adjudicating authority rightly issued the show cause notice and quantified the demand. - Decided against assessee. - Central Excise Appeal No. 34 of 2013 - Dated:- 26-11-2015 - Hon' .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n that they are a small scale industry unit and would therefore, be availing excise duty at concessional rate as per Notification No.7/97-CE dated 1st March, 1997, Notification No.38/97-CE dated 27th June, 1997, Notification 9/98-CE dated 2nd June, 1998 and Notification No.9/99-CE dated 28th February, 1999. On scrutiny of the records, the department noticed that the appellant M/s Premium Suitings (P) Ltd. (Chemical Division) was not a separate manufacturer and that it was a division of M/s Premi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

fit under the notifications. Accordingly, seven show cause notices were issued to the appellant for different periods proposing a total demand of duty of ₹ 4,04,171/- along with penalty and interest. The said notice after receiving a reply culminated in the passing of an order in original in which the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty of ₹ 4,04,171/- and also imposed a penalty of ₹ 50,000/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal, which was allowed. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Suitings (P) Ltd., I find that there are three Directors. However in the case of the Appellants, the Management consists of only two Directors. Therefore, Management of the both the unit is different. Regarding housed in the same premises, I find that both the unit have separate passage/entrance and common wall between these units not be termed as one unit. Thus, it is also clear that both the units have different. They is why, the Department had issued Central Excise Registration on the basis .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

one factory. Even definition of "factory" as defined in Section 2(e) of the said Act cannot stipulate any such conditions. I also notice that the end product is also different one manufacturer Chemicals/Adhesives and other manufacturers Cotton Fabric. The raw materials used by them are also different. Both the unit have their separate skilled staff. Both have separate Central Excise Registration. From the above discussed facts, I find that there is no commonality between the two factor .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tories does not make them as one factory even though the Apex level factories are maintained by one company". In view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and above discussed facts, I hold that both the factories are separate legal identity. In the light of the above stated facts and circumstances of the case, I pass the following order." The department, being aggrieved, filed a second appeal before the Tribunal, which was allowed and the order of the first appellate authority was set asid .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ependent from their Textile Division and are independently eligible for SSI exemption?" We have heard Sri Praveen Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Vinod Kant, the learned counsel for the department. The extract of the relevant notification that was applicable during the period in question, namely, Notification No.7 of 1997 dated 1st March, 1997 is extracted hereunder:- "The exemption contained in this notification shall apply only subject to the following conditions .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of all excisable goods for home consumption from one or more factories or from a factory by one or more manufacturers does not exceed ₹ 3 crores in the preceding financial year. Admittedly, from the evidence that has come on record, the manufacturer has two factories. One factory is engaged in the manufacture of cloth and the second factory is engaged in the manufacture of Polymer Vinyl Acetate, etc. Both the goods manufactured in two separate factories are excisable goods. The exemption t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version