TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (12) TMI 882
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... family members. M/s. Solex Electronics Equipments is a proprietary concern, and is inter alia engaged in manufacture of Electronic Control Panel Boards. Above three partnership firms and proprietary concern are hereinafter referred to as "Manufacturing units" of the Appellants in short. 2. The above three partnership firms at the relevant time were registered with the Central Excise Department whereas the proprietary concern was a small scale industrial (SSI) unit and was availing the benefit of exemption Notification No.1/93-CE dated 01.03.1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Notification") from payment of duty. 3. M/s. SolidMec Equipments Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as " Solidmec ") was a marketing company engaged in manufactur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....actory and office premises of the appellants were searched by Central Excise Officers when all relevant documents related to machines and sale of machines were seized. During the course of investigations, statements of Shri Hasmukh V. Dodia and Shri Dhirajbhai V. Dodia were recorded on 20.11.1996 and 22.11.1996. 8. The above investigation culminated into show-cause notice dated 30.11.1999 whereby the appellants were called upon to show cause to the Respondents as to why duty should not be demanded and recovered from them under proviso to Section 11A(1) of the said Act read with Rule 9(2) of the said Rules based on the allegations that the appellants had wrongly availed the benefit of the SSI exemption Notification since the appellants had ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ount to manufacture as the plants assembled at site unit were fixed to the ground and therefore cannot be called as "goods" under excise law. Since the appellants succeeded on merits, other issues such as jurisdiction, correctness of quantification, availability of modvat credit were not dealt with by the Tribunal. 11. The order of the Tribunal was challenged by the Revenue before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 08.04.2010 disposed of the appeal holding that setting up of an Asphalt Drum Mix Plant by using duty paid components amounts to manufacture of excisable goods and held that manufacturing unit of components with the brand name " SolidmMec " were not eligible for the benefit of SSI exemption. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f of the units which the Tribunal has not examined. In that view of the matter our answer to question No.2 is in the negative. 36. In the result we allow these appeals, set aside orders dated 19th August 2002 and 8th April 2003 passed by the Tribunal and remand the matter back to the Tribunal for passing fresh orders on the subject appropriately dealing with the alternative which the respondents may urge keeping in view of the observations made hereinabove." 12. The appellants have raised the following grounds before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which were not considered by the Apex Court and left to the Tribunal for consideration. The first ground relates to the jurisdiction for issue of show-cause notice. The second grou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iable to pay duty, the benefit of modavat credit for the duty paid for the components manufactured may be extended to them. 13. It was submitted that not a single plant was assembled at site in the jurisdiction of the Commissioner to whom the show-cause notice was answerable who had adjudicated the matter and confirmed the demand in the impugned order. The Learned Counsel relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Oriental Arts and Crafts vs. C.C. (Prev.) Bombay -2003 (155) ELT 168 (Tri- Bom .), further M/s. Boving Fouress Ltd. vs. CCE, Chennai - 2004 (175) ELT 899 (Tri.Bang.). 14. Before the matter could be taken up for discussion, the learned A.R. submits that the issue remanded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is only rel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....321 (Tri.Bang .) was cited. In that case it was held that Commissioner cannot extend the definition of the factory to mean that any place outside the factory even beyond jurisdiction of the Commissioner would come within the definition of the factory. It was submitted that therefore the Commissioner could have issued show-cause notice only in respect of the Hot Mix Plant Assembly in his jurisdiction. On the other hand the learned A.R. took us through the statutory provisions and relied upon decision in the case of Boving Fouress Ltd. vs. CCE, Chennai - 2004 (175) ELT 899.(Tri. - Bang.). 18. Considerable time was taken to present the arguments relating to jurisdiction but we found that the learned Commissioner had disposed of the issue in j....