TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (7) TMI 749
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....were availing SSI exemption under notification no.8/03-CE. The D.G. Sets were being manufactured by using Mahindra & Mahindra E-Tech Engines. The department's allegation is that on D.G. sets being manufactured and cleared by them, they were affixing the brandname "Mahindra Powerol" alongwith logo of Mahindra & Mahindra. Accordingly, the department was of the view that they would not be eligible for SSI exemption. On this basis, a show cause notice was issued to them for denying the benefit of SSI exemption, recovery of the duty short paid by them along with interest and also imposition of penalty. The duty demand in the show cause notice was Rs.77,98,622/- along with interest. The show cause notice besides the demand of duty along with inte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the fact that they were using the brand name of other person. However, this plea was not accepted as prima facie no credible evidence in this regard had been produced. 2. The appellant instead of complying with the above order of the Tribunal, have filed this application for modification of the stay order enclosing a letter dated 6.6.2012 from Tehsildar, Tehsil Jaipur, mentioning that the Plot No.166, Industrial Area, Sarna Doongar (where the appellant's factory situated) is within the Gram Bawri, Gram Panchayat, Sarna Doongar, Jaipur and that the same is a rural area. This letter is addressed to Upkhand Adhikari, Jaipur. 3. In response to this misc. application of the appellant, the respondent Commissioner was directed to send his c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s certificate is to be admitted as evidence of the factory being located in rural area for the purpose of notification no.8/03-CE and also the judgement of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. Blue Bay Mineral Water Co. reported in 2011 (264) ELT 249 (Tribunal-Chennai). He also cited the judgement of the Tribunal in the case of Kalyani Foods Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2004 (170) ELT 82 wherein it was held that a particular village in Haridwar district is not to be treated as located in urban area merely because of its inclusion in the limits of Haridwar Development Authority. He emphasized that while in terms of para-4 of the exemption notification, the exemption is not applicable to the goods bearing brand nam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pur Region" means area in the limits of the city, town and village specified in Schedule-I, that Sl.No.87 of the Schedule I to the Jaipur Development Authority Act covers village Sarna Dungar, that since "Sarna Dungar" is within Jaipur region as defined in Section 2(8) of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, in terms of Section 2(b) of Rajasthan Land Review Act, 1956, the same has to be treated as urban area, that in view of this, the appellant's factory has to be treated as located in urban area, that in view of this, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and that Tehsildar's certificate is not an evidence to prove as to whether in terms of the provisions of Jaipur Development Authority Act, village Sarna Dungar is rural area or urb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s falling within "Jaipur region", as defined in clause (8) of Section 2 of Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982. According to Clause (8) of Section 2 of Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982", "Jaipur region" means an area in the limits of the city, towns and villages specified in Schedule-I Sl. No.87 of the Schedule I to the Jaipur Development Authority Act covers village "Sarna Dungar" in which the appellant's factory is located. Thus, village Sarana Dungar falls within the "Jaipur region" and, therefore, by virtue of Section 2 (b) of the Rajasthan land Review Act, 1956, the same has to be treated as urban area. In view of this, we fail to understand as to how Tehsildar, Jaipur earlier vide letter dated 6.6.2012 addressed to Upkhand Ad....