2011 (4) TMI 901

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llants are manufacturer of Tin Containers and were availing benefit of SSI exemption Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 1.3.2003, as amended. The appellants were manufacturing tin containers not only on their own account but also on job-work basis by following the procedure of Notification No. 83/84. However, the condition of Notification No. 83/94, which requires the principal (raw material supplie....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and equal amount of penalty was also imposed under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944.   2. In support of the stay application, the learned Counsel submitted that, in several decisions, the Tribunal has taken the view that the procedural infraction should not be reason for denial of benefit of exemption, if otherwise, the manufacturer was eli....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tested it by submitting documentary evidence. The learned Counsel submitted that according to the appellants, the cost should have been Rs.37/- per kg, whereas the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has taken Rs.39/- as the value. It was submitted that the contention was made on the basis of purchase invoice of raw materials supplier from the market. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has taken t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Khambhatwala 1996 (84) ELT 161 (SC)   (ii) CCE & Cus, Surat Vs. Span Heat Transfer Equip Mfrs. P. Ltd. 2001 (135) ELT 861 (Tri-Mum)   (iii) Desh Rolling Mills Vs. CCE, Delhi 2000 (122) ELT 481 (Tri)   (iv) International Engg. & Mfg. Services P. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur 2001 (135) ELT 551 (Tri-Del)   (v) Ujagar Prints Etc. Etc. Vs. UOI & Others 1989 (39) ELT 493 (SC)   The....