https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379850 SSI exemption under Notification No. 08/2000-C.E. could not be denied merely because the declaration under Notification No. 22/98-C.E. (N.T.) was not filed, since that declaration was not an express condition for refusal of the exemption. The duty demand was therefore restricted to the portion beyond the aggregate value of Rs. 50 lakhs, with recomputation directed. Cum-duty benefit had to be applied while recalculating the demand, including earlier confirmed amounts, so duty would reflect the price actually realised. A separate penalty on the proprietor was unsustainable because a proprietorship concern and its proprietor are not separate persons in law; the matter was remanded only for recomputation of duty and corresponding penalty. en-us Wed, 13 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 May 2019 06:26:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379850 SSI exemption under Notification No. 08/2000-C.E. could not be denied merely because the declaration under Notification No. 22/98-C.E. (N.T.) was not filed, since that declaration was not an express condition for refusal of the exemption. The duty demand was therefore restricted to the portion beyond the aggregate value of Rs. 50 lakhs, with recomputation directed. Cum-duty benefit had to be applied while recalculating the demand, including earlier confirmed amounts, so duty would reflect the price actually realised. A separate penalty on the proprietor was unsustainable because a proprietorship concern and its proprietor are not separate persons in law; the matter was remanded only for recomputation of duty and corresponding penalty. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 13 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379850