Manufacture proof and SSI registration failures sustained duty demands and penalties on disputed crane clearance and exemption claim.

Manufacture of an EOT crane was disputed where the evidence showed limited machinery, both units operating from the same premises, and the quotation standing in the name of another concern; as no satisfactory proof of input purchase or use by the appellant was produced, the duty demand on the March 1989 clearance was sustained. SSI exemption for 1-4-1989 to 31-10-1989 was also denied because the provisional registration referred to a different factory location and permanent registration at the relevant address was obtained only on 20-10-1989, with no proof that correction of the provisional certificate had been sought. The corresponding duty demand and penalties were upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the demand raised in respect of the EOT crane cleared in March 1989 was sustainable on the basis that it was manufactured and cleared by the other unit. (ii) Whether the denial of SSI exemption for the period 1-4-1989 to 31-10-1989 was justified for want of registration of the factory at the relevant premises with the Directorate of Industries.

Issue (i): Whether the demand raised in respect of the EOT crane cleared in March 1989 was sustainable on the basis that it was manufactured and cleared by the other unit.

Analysis: The evidence showed limited machinery with the appellant claiming manufacture, both units functioning from the same , and the quotation for the crane standing in the name of the other concern. No satisfactory proof was produced regarding purchase and use of inputs by the appellant for manufacture of the crane. On this material, the finding that the crane was not shown to have been manufactured by the appellant was supported by record.

Conclusion: The demand relating to the March 1989 clearance was upheld against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the denial of SSI exemption for the period 1-4-1989 to 31-10-1989 was justified for want of registration of the factory at the relevant premises with the Directorate of Industries.

Analysis: The provisional registration certificate mentioned a different factory location, while the permanent registration at the relevant address was obtained only on 20-10-1989. No evidence was produced to show that correction of the provisional certificate had been sought or that the relevant premises stood registered as a small scale unit during the disputed period. The exemption claim therefore failed on the facts proved.

Conclusion: The denial of SSI exemption and the corresponding duty demand were upheld against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal sustained both duty demands and the penalties, holding that the appellants had not established either manufacture by the claimed unit in March 1989 or SSI registration for the disputed period.

---