9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 711X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n appeal against the impugned order. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondent was availing SSI exemption during the period 2001-2002. As the value of aggregated clearance of Rs. 1 crore was crossed, therefore, they were required to pay duty @ 16% ad valorem but vide letter dated 1.3.2002, the respondent again opted for SSI exemption for the period 2002-03 and started clearances of goods a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otice, the demand sought to be confirmed is Rs. 5,23,757/- whereas the demand has been confirmed to the tune of Rs. 23,85,552/- which is beyond the scope of the show cause notice. Further, it was held that the demand of credit was calculated on average basis taking into consideration the power presses lying in the stock as on 31.3.2002 without going into the actual calculation of raw material invo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent by invoking the extended period of limitation as the facts were known to the department. Therefore, the show cause notice has been barred by limitation. On merits, in the show cause notice, there was proposal to deny the credit of Rs. 5,23,757/- whereas the adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand of Rs. 23,85,552/- which is beyond the scope of show cause notice. Further, he submits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of show cause notice. Therefore, the demand of Rs. 23,85,552/- is not sustainable. Further, I find that the demand sought to be confirmed in the show cause notice on the basis of average calculation without going into the actual value of credit to be denied. Therefore, the said demand is also not sustainable. Further, I find that availemnt of SSI exemption by the respondent and reversal of the cre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
