TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeal before this Tribunal is pertaining to the same period and the fact that the Adjudication by the Tribunal has already been done for the earlier period 2003-04 and 2004-05 and the amount is also same i.e. ₹ 22,67,593/- this amount included the demand for period April to July 2005 as well. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the department had not produced any order contrary to the order of this Tribunal. The same is applicable in the case in hand being recent judgment. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - EXCISE APPEAL NO. E/3071-3073/2007-EX[DB] - FINAL ORDER NO. 60346-60348/2019 - Dated:- 1-4-2019 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Bijay Kumar, Member (Technical) Present f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vasai plant, they were manufacturing packed performs (3926.90) and bottle closers/caps (3923.90) whereas in respect of Vasai unit, the appellant surrendered their Registration Certificate on 31.03.2005. During the financial year, they were availing the SSI Exemption from the payment of Central Excise duty under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dt. 01.03.2003 as amended from time to time available upto first clearance value of specified goods upto Ruppes 100 lakhs in respect of their own branded goods of other manufactures, in Rohad (Haryana) being located in rural area. They were not availing SSI Exemption for other units located at Jaipur, the normal duty from the very beginning of the financial year for specified goods, manufactured and cleared ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the party under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 which should also be recovered. 3. Being aggrieved, the appellants filed the appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who vide the impugned order has uphold the order of the Lower Adjudicating Authority. Against the said order, the appellants are before us in the appeal. 4. Ld. Advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that the similar issue pertaining to earlier proceeding in their own case has been decided in their favour by this Tribunal vide Final Order No. 52300-52302/2015 dated 15.07.2015. In view of the above, Ld. Advocate contends that the impugned order is to be given the same treatment and required to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. A.R. re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is no condition about the status of other units of the manufacturer. He also contended that the Jaipur unit was set up in October, 2003 and Vasai unit in December, 2003 whereas the Rohad unit (present appellant unit) was set up in July, 2002 they have exercised the option for availing SSI exemption in April, 2003. At that time, the other two units were not in existence. The Original Authority as well as Appellate Authority proceeded against them in their own premise of reading together all the conditions of the Notification, which are not applicable to them. On the other hand learned AR contended that the manufacturer having multiple units are bound by the condition of combined turnover and single option for exemption or duty payment. We fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
