TMI Blog2005 (8) TMI 253X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r-in-Appeal No. 637/02, dated 22-10-2002 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals) Bangalore. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows. 3. M/s. Press Fab Precision Components Pvt. Ltd., was incorporated on 1-4-1999. Prior to that period a partnership firm M/s. Press Fab Industries was in existence. Two demands were raised against M/s. Press Fab Industries for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The OIO is self-contradictory and the demand is untenable in law as the appellant was exempted from total duty liability and there was a separate show cause notice on the appellant and the erstwhile firm. (ii) Instead of dropping the proceedings, the demand was confirmed. The appellants was not put to notice as to why the firm's duty should not be demanded from the Private Limited Company b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on limit. (iv) The Supreme Court in the case of Supreme Washers (P) Ltd. v. CCE [2003 (151) E.L.T. 14 (S.C.)] has held that Limited Company should be treated as a separate entity for the purpose of exemption limit. Board's circular of 1992 was referred to. (v) On 10-9-2004, a new proviso to Section 11 of the Central Excise Act was introduced for recovery of duty from a person succeeding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case carefully. In the adjudication order, the Original Authority has held that no duty is payable for the relevant period by the appellant limited company. Moreover, during the relevant period, there was no provision to demand duty from the successor as a new provision to section 11 was introduced only on 10-9-2004. The period of demand in this case is prior to that. Moreover, for the period of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
