TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (5) TMI 652
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Notification No. 175/86 -C E dated 1.3.1986 with effect from 17th June, 1986? 2. Whether the CEGAT has committed error of law in holding that the question of adjudication of benefits of Notification cannot be looked into in view of the fact that no Appeal had been filed against the remand order holding that the Applicants were entitled to the benefits of Notification with effect from 31st July, 1987? 3. Whether the CEGAT has committed error of law in not holding that the demand of excise duty for clearances made before 6th November, 1986 were barred by limitation and could not be recovered in view of the proviso of Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act? 4. Whether the Tribunal has committed error of law in not taking into acco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lty of Rs. 10 lakhs adopting the calculation given by the Appellants in their reply to the show cause notice regarding figures of rubber belting and taking the value of clearance of finished rubber belting as shown in diaries. The Commissioner, however disallowed them the benefit of S.S.I. exemption Notification No. 175/86 prior to 24.8.90 when S.S.I. registration Certificate was issued to them holding that the exact date of application for S.S.I registration was not submitted and they were not eligible to avail S.S.I. exemption on the basis of Certificate issued in favour of M/s Vikrant Udyog Ltd. whom the appellants had taken the factory on lease from. The Collector also did not accept their plea that the challans issued in 1991 were for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubber compound which was in existence in their despatches right from 1986-1987 to 1990-1991. The Commissioner also reached the calculations that (1) They had manufactured both type of rubber belting i.e. containing more than 25% of rubber compound and containing less than 25% of rubber compound; (2) that from the entries recorded in the resumed diaries and clear cut admission of such removal by Shri R.K. Agarwal, Proprietor and Shri Daya Shaker, Munim, it is established that they had indulged in clandestine removal of rubber belting manufactured by them; (3) the appellants at no point of time had refuted the charge of clandestine removal as they had only disputed the quantity and value of clandestine removal as brought out by the investigat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the remand order of the Tribunal, the demand is not hit by time limit as the same pertains to the period commencing from 6.11.96 which is well within the period of 5 years specified in Proviso to Section 11 A of the Central Excise Act; the penalty is not excessive and is within limit specified under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Tribunal has also held that benefit of S.S.I. Exemption No. 175/86 dated 15.3.1986 cannot be claimed by them on the basis of registration Certificate issued in favour of Vikrant Udyog and the benefit of S.S.I. Exemption would be available to them from the date they applied for registration as S.S.I. with the Directorate of Industries i.e. 31.7.87 in view of the specific finding of the Tribunal i....