TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 1563
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....32-13-14 dated 27.02.2014. Hence, all the appeals are taken up together for disposal. 2. The Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Daman adjudicated five show cause notices and confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 15,50,78,145/- alongwith interest and imposed penalty of equal amount of duty demanded. He also confiscated the excisable goods valued at Rs. 1,34,52,40,271/- and imposed redemption fine of 35 Crores in lieu of confiscation of the readymade garments exported by the appellants. The adjudicating authority also imposed penalty of Rs. 10 Lakh under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants filed these appeals. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are a unit situated i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Procedures on the ground that the appellants are not entitled to SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003, in view of the Para 4 of the notification and the appellants are manufacturing readymade garments and affixing brand name of buyers. Consequently, holding that that the duty is leviable on the said goods, he confirmed the demand of duty with interest and imposed penalty and redemption fine as stated above. 4. Heard both sides. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that they are a unit situated in a Rural Area within the meaning of Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003. In view of the fact that appellant s factory is located in Rural Area, the mischief of Para 4 of the Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vs. CCE, Meerut 2009 (245) ELT 499 (Tri. Del.) (g) Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Company vs. Collector of Central Excise Bombay 1995 (78) ELT 401 (SC) ; etc. etc.. 5. On the other hand, learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue strongly contended that the appellants were required to follow the procedures as laid down and due to non-observance of the procedures, the appellant is not entitled for the benefits. He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Aluminium Company Limited vs. Thane Municipal Corporation 1991 (55) ELT 454 (SC) and the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s. Ramakrishna Solvex Pvt. Limited vs. UOI 2014-TIOL-2084-HC-MP-CX. 6. On consideration of the submiss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the financial year 2002-2003 as calculated in the manner specified in paragraph 1, may submit a declaration regarding such use instead of following the procedure laid down in the said Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001; (b) where the specified goods bear a brand name or trade name of - (i) the Khadi and Village Industries Commission; or (ii) a State Khadi and Village Industry Board; or (iii) the National Small Industries Corporation; or (iv) a State Small Industries Development Corporation; or (v) a State Small Industries Corporation; (c) where the specified goods are manufactured in a factory located in a rural area. 7. It is observed that as pe....