1999 (2) TMI 337

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../s Pimtex Texturising P. Ltd., Surat who had surrendered their Registration Certificate No. 3704040269 in the month of October, 1996 but subsequently sold their Crimping machine SDS 3 to the assessee. 3. The old management i.e. M/s Pimtex Texturising P. Ltd., Surat were having two units viz. Pimtex Texturising P. Ltd., at Kim and another viz. M/s Pimtex Texturising P. Ltd. at Surat and both units were manufacturing Textured Yarn falling under Chapter Heading No. 5402.32 till the surrender of their Central Excise Registration.   4. In the financial year 1995-96, the aggregate value of clearance of the excisable good for home consumption of Kim and Surat units of M/s. Pimtex Texturising P. Ltd. crossed Rs. 300 Lakhs, a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ee was asked to show cause to the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Div-IV, Surat I as to why the Central Excise duty Rs. 452485/- (BD Rs. 393468 and Addl. TTA Rs. 59077/-) for the period from November, 1996 to February-97 and Rs. 246369/- (BD Rs. 6,98,854/- should not be recovered from them under Rule 9(2), of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and under Section 11A of Central Excise & penalty should not be imposed on them under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. 7. The said show cause notice was decided by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Div-IV, Surat vide above referred order-in-original. Relevant portion of the order is reproduced hereunder : "The text of the Notification No. 1/93 as amended, I observed that i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....taking registration by M/s. Pankil on 15-11-1996. Thus they are not eligible to concessional rate of 10% of duty." 8. Being aggrieved by this order the present appeal has been preferred. 9. A personal hearing was granted on 25-1-1999. Shri Tejas Joshi, Consultant and Shri P.K. Upadhyay, Consultant appeared before me, who reiterated the submissions made in the appeal. In addition to earlier submissions and evidences, they also submitted additional evidence viz. (1)     Invoice (1st commercial invoices 28-11-1996) of M/s Pankil Textiles. (2)     Rent deed of M/s. Pankil Textile. (3)     Invoice of M/s. Pimtex (dated 25-9-1996) (for sale of machinery to M/s Pa....