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

Manish Apparel, Manish Garments And Manish Dresses Versus C.C.E., Indore

2016 (6) TMI 403 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

SSI Exemption - Clubbing of clearance of 3 manufacturing units - duty demand alongwith interest and equal amount of penalty - mis-utilisation of SSI benefit provided in Notification No.8/2001 (CE) dated 01.l03.2001, by not accounting for the clearance value of its other units M/s. Manish Garments and M/s.Manish Apparels in its books of accounts - Held that:- Adjudicating authority has not specified that out of the 3 appellants, who is the principal manufacturer and who are the dummy units of the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

implicitly all the appellants as independent units. Hence, without categorically specifying or bifurcating as to who is the principal manufacturer and who are the dummy ones, floated with a view to conceal clearance of principal manufacturer, confirmation of duty demand will not stand for judicial scrutiny. The SSI exemption provided under Notification No.01.03.2001 cannot be denied on the ground that the said Notification specifies the manufacturer and not the manufacturers for the purpose of .....

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 Tribunal in the case of Shiva Exim Enterprises (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court have dismissed the same holding the view taken by the Tribunal that there could not have been the clubbing of the two units. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Excise Appeal No.E/2339/2006-EX [SM], Excise Appeal No.E/2340/2006-EX [SM] & Excise Appeal No.E/2857/2006-EX [SM] - FINAL ORDER NO. 51939-51941/2016 - Dated:- 27-5-2016 - MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) For the Appellant : Shri.Manish Saharan, Advoca .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

,595/- alongwith interest and equal amount of penalty were confirmed against the appellants on the ground that M/s.Manish Dresses has mis-utilised the SSI benefit provided in Notification No.8/2001 (CE) dated 01.l03.2001, by not accounting for the clearance value of its other units M/s. Manish Garments and M/s.Manish Apparels in its books of accounts. 3. Shri Manish Saharan, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the adjudication order has confirmed the duty demand on all the appe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

atutory provisions, and as such, duty demand confirmed by the authorities below are liable to be set aside. To support his said stand, the ld. Advocate has relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh vs. Shiva Exim Enterprises reported in 2005 (185) ELT 169 (Tri.-Del.) and also the judgment dated 16.07.2015 of the Honble Supreme Court wherein the appeal filed by Revenue against the decision of Shiva Exim Enterprises (Supra) has been dismisse .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

The adjudicating authority vide the impugned order dated 31.10.2005 has concluded the following in support of confirmation of duty demand and for imposition of penalty. i. The Central Excise duty amounting to ₹ 11,99,595/- (Rupees Eleven Lakh ninety nine thousand five hundred ninety five only) payable on clearances of finished goods is demanded form Noticee No.1, 2 & 3 jointly and severally under proviso to section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. As Noticee No.1 to 3 have already pai .....

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 clear specifications with regard to the principal manufacturer, in whose turn over, the clearances of dummy units have to included, it is not only difficult but imposible to recognise as to who is the principal manufacturer, on whom the duty liability can be fastened. The operative portion in the adjudication order fixing the liability for payment of duty and penalty by all the appellants, jointly and severally, clearly shows that the Revenue has recognised implicitly all the appellants as i .....

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
 


Share:            

|| 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