2002 (10) TMI 618

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2. The appellants have got strong prima facie case. They are SSI unit and had not crossed the prescribed limit as even observed in the impugned order by the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, the stay application of the appellants is allowed. 3. With the consent of both the sides. I proceed to hear the appeal on merits also. 4. This appeal has been filed by the appellants again....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... were proposed to be confiscated and penalty was also proposed to be imposed on them. The appellants contested the show cause notice by pleading that they were SSI unit and their clearances had not exceeded the prescribed limit and as such, they were not supposed to take the central excise registration and file declaration under rule 174 of the Rules. No statutory record was required to be maintai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ossed the exemption limit. The Commissioner (Appeals) has, in the impugned order (para 5.4), observed that being a SSI unit, the appellants were not required to maintain any statutory record. However, he has further observed that that the appellants were liable to maintain some simplified records in support of their claim that they had not crossed the exemption limit. But his these observations fo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... at the time of inspection of the factory on 6-8-97. Even the statement of finished goods was also prepared and so also of the raw material, copies of which are at pages 19A to 19E & 20 of the file. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude that that the appellants were not maintaining any simplified records regarding their finished goods and raw material. Rather it is evident that they were maintain....