Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Manuals Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Versus Excel Controlinkage Pvt. Ltd.

2016 (1) TMI 333 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Denial of SSI Exemption - Use of other's brand name - factory located in rural area - whether the respondent has correctly availed the benefit of Notification No.8/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002 during the financial year 2002-03 - Held that:- Show-cause notice as well as the findings of the first appellate authority clearly record that the benefit of Notification No.8/2002-CE is denied on the ground that the appellant is not eligible to avail the benefit as they are affixing the brand name of "cable c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e rural area and another certificate which has been issued by the Regional Officer, MIDC, Nagpur to the same effect. It is not the case of the Revenue, the Regional Officer, MIDC could not have issued the said certificate indicating that the respondent's factory is located in rural area. As against such a specific findings of the first appellate authority, we find that the Grounds of Appeal does not provide any evidence controverting such a certificate. We also find that the Grounds of Appeal is .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

es and perused the records. 3. The issue involved in this case is whether the respondent has correctly availed the benefit of Notification No.8/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002 during the financial year 2002-03. It was the case of the Revenue in the show-cause notice that the appellant had manufactured various products and cleared the said finished goods by availing the benefit of Notification 8/2002-CE but the said finished goods bore the marking of "cable craft". The adjudicating authority c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

-CE are applicable as Tehsildar of the Village and the Regional Officer, MIDC, Nagpur have given certificates that the factory of the appellant falls under Rural area as defined in the Notification No. 8/2002-CE. 4. We find that the show-cause notice as well as the findings of the first appellate authority clearly record that the benefit of Notification No.8/2002-CE is denied on the ground that the appellant is not eligible to avail the benefit as they are affixing the brand name of "cable .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mmittee, cantonment board or notified area committee or, (ii) any area that may be notified as an urban area by Central Govt. or State Govt." 4.1 It is the case of the Revenue that the appellant's factory is situated in MIDC notified by the Government of Maharashtra hence falls under the category of exclusively carved out by a Notification. We have considered the submissions made by learned D.R. on this point and various notifications & relevant clauses. We find that the first appel .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version