2018 (1) TMI 703

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r the appellant. Rep. by Shri H.Saini, DR for the respondent. ORDER Per B. Ravichandran: The appeal is against Order-in-Appeal No. BHO-EXCUS-002-APP-108-15-16 dated 22.07.2016 of the Commissioner (Appeals),Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Raipur (Chhattisgarh)]. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of slag wool and pig iron. They had two manufacturing facilities located at 37 an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... or the appellant submitted that they are having two units manufacturing different products and accordingly obtained two central excise registrations. The lower authority have wrongly concluded that turnover of these two units are to be clubbed for SSI exemption. He further submitted that in ER-3 Return, both the units separately indicated the fact that they were availing exemption under notificati .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the appellant. 5. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 6. The admitted facts are that the appellants are single legal entity having PAN NO. and Company Law Registration . They are managed by same Board of Directors. We could not identify the two manufacturing facilities recognizable in terms of SSI exemption. In fact, the notification clearly stipulates that aggregate .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X