2007 (1) TMI 472

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for the Appellant. Shri Samir Chitkara, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.S. Kang, Vice-President]. -  Heard both sides. The appellant filed appeals against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the benefit of Small Scale Exemption under Notification No. 175/86 dated 1-3-1986 was denied on the ground that during the period 7-5-1990 to 31-7-1992, the appellants were not r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a Enterprises v. CCE, New Delhi reported in 2000 (116) E.L.T. 264 and the case of Punjab State Forest Development Corporation Ltd v. CCE, Chandigarh, 1998 (25) RLT 883. 3. The contention of the Revenue is that during the relevant period, the appellants were not registered with the competent authority as a small scale unit, therefore, they are not entitled for the benefit. 4. We fin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cial year did not exceed or is not likely to exceed rupees seven and a half lakhs; or (b)     in a case where a manufacturer who is manufacturing specified goods in a factory, other than a factory which is registered under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (65 of 1951) with the Directorate General of Technical Development in the Ministry of Industry, and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the provisions of Para 4 of the Notification, the appellants are entitled for the benefit of notification for the subsequent financial year also. Further, we find that the Tribunal, in the decision relied by the appellants, allowed the benefit of small scale benefit of Notification No. 175/86 to the assessee who avail the benefit of notification during the financial year and for the subsequent f....