2004 (6) TMI 428

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri V. Valte, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.S. Kang, Member (J)]. -  The appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 24-1-97, the Officers of Revenue Department visited the office premises of M/s. Kurlon Limited and on verification it was found that M/s. Kurlon Limited wer....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....missioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand and reduced the amount of penalty under Section 11AC as this section was introduced in the Central Excise Act on 28-9-96 and some period of demand was prior to 28-9-96. The Commissioner (Appeals) also imposed the penalty under Rule 173Q of the Rules. 4. Heard both the sides. The contention of the appellants is that the pillow covers were stitched by....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../s. Kurlon Limited. Therefore, the appellants were entitled to SSI exemption. 6. Regarding the limitation, the contention of the Revenue is that the appellants never disclosed the fact that they were clearing the branded goods. Even no declaration was filed for availing the benefit of SSI exemption, therefore, the extended period is rightly invoked. 7. We find that the admitted fac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he impugned order that the appellants are not entitled to the benefit of SSI exemption notification. The contention of the appellants is that the demand is time-barred is also without any merit as the appellants never disclosed to the Revenue regarding manufacturing activity. Even no declaration for availing the benefit of SSI exemption notification was filed. In respect of imposition of penalty, ....