9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... personal penalty has been imposed. 2. This is the third round of litigation after the matter was remanded twice to the original authority for denovo adjudication by this Bench. The issue in brief is that the appellant is a manufacturer of HDPE sacks and is registered with the Central excise department and has been availing the benefit of SSI exemption. Investigation was conducted by the Commissionerate as it was felt that their clearances in the name of one M/s Ashwini Enterprises are actually dummy clearances and the unit itself is a dummy one. It was therefore, felt that clearances done by M/s Ashwini enterprises should be clubbed with the clearances of appellant M/s Modern Poly Plast, which resulted in value of clearances being higher. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot liable to central excise. I also fid in the Sales Tax Assessment order for the year 1991-92 an amount of Rs. 5,38,243/- as pertaining to Job Work, which is also required to be deducted from the value adopted in the SCN for the said year. 16. As regards Job Work from M/s Tasi Plastics thought the party submitted copy of permission letter obtained from department for sending goods for job work they have not submitted any documentary evidence with regard to value of job work got done through M/s Tasi Plastics by the party during the period 1992-93 nor was there was any mention of it in the sales tax assessment order. Hence, the benefit of deduction from value of Rs. 20,23,500/- being relatable to job work activity as claimed by the party ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so denied them the SSI exemption for the years 1993-94 and 1994-95 on the ground that they have exceeded the turnover limit of Rs. 200 lacs during the period 1992-93. He, therefore, confirmed the following demands, interest and penalties: i) Under Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1994 read with subsection (1) of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, a demand of Rs. 21,02,271/- in respect of Show Cause Notice OR No.99/93-Adjn dt.23.12.1993. ii) Under Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with subsection (1) of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, a demand of Rs. 2,68,496/- in respect of Show Cause Notice OC No.28-94-Adjn dt.10.01.1994. iii) Under Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with subsection (1) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erated Order-in-Original and asserts that the benefit of SSI exemption is not available to them for the period 1993-94 because their turnover had exceeded the limit of Rs. 200 lacs during the previous year. He conceded that for the period 1994-95 the appellant would be entitled to the benefit of SSI exemption because their turnover for the period 1993-94 was less than Rs. 200 lacs. 8. We have considered the arguments on the both sides and perused the records. We find in the impugned order, the learned Commissioner has considered all the directions given by this Bench vide Final Order dated 09.07.2009 and has recorded his findings in detail. He also gave a detailed annexure justifying the demands confirmed by him with respect to the three s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
