2017 (3) TMI 414

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ve not obtained Central Excise registration and cleared the goods without payment of duty. Search of the premises of the manufacture were conducted by the officers and various documents were seized. Accordingly, show cause notice issued demanding duty. In first round of adjudication demand was confirmed. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal wherein vide Order No. C-II/862-66/WZB/2001 dated 4-4-2001 while remanding the Tribunal has passed following order; "55. In the light of our discussion above, we hold that: (0 the manufacturers of the furniture were not the outside contractors but that the furniture was manufactured by the appellant units, viz., EIPL / EBFW; (ii) the clearance of these two uni....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hri. Jitu Motwani, Ld. Counsel with Shri. Chirag Shetty, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that appellant is aggrieved by the certain portion of the order inasmuch as the Adjudicating authority has not allowed the SSI exemption for the reason that in the year 1992-93 duty was demanded for the month of March, 1993 however SSI exemption was not allowed in this financial year 1992-93. He further submits that in the year 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 the cum duty benefit was not extended. He further submits that penalty under Section 11AC is not imposable as there is no suppression of facts, fraud, collusion, mis-statement, etc on the part of the appellant. He further submits that the adjudicating authority though in the firs....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dicating authority to re-consider the duty demand for the period 1992-93. As regard the claim of the appellant of cum duty value for the period 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96, we observed that exemption slab was correctly given to the appellant and accordingly duty was quantified therefore there is no error in the computation of the excise duty and cum duty benefit has been extended to the appellant. As regard the penalty imposed under Rule, 173Q, it is observed that there was no proposal in the show cause notice for imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q. It is also observed that in the first round of litigation there was no penalty imposed under Rule, 173Q against which no appeal was filed by the Revenue therefore in the impugned order impos....