TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 1680
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tral Excise Chapter Heading No. 7214. The Department has been of the view that the appellant have not paid central excise duty amounting to Rs. 3,28,132/- by irregular availment of SSI exemption No. 8/2003-CE dated 1 March 2003 during the period between October 2016 to March 2017 alleging that another party M/s Suparash Electro Product Co. which was also working from the same premises between 1 April to September 2016 and therefore the clearances affected by M/s Suparash Electro Product Co. should have been added to the clearance of the appellant for determination of the exemption limit of the clearances for the purpose of availing Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 1 March 2003. It has also been alleged that appellant have not paid or short ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lectro Product Co. a proprietorship was carrying out manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapter 72 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 during the period between April 2016 to June 2016 and excisable goods valued at Rs. 29,55,128/- were cleared by them during the period and they have availed SSI exemption. It is further added that M/s Suparash Electro Product Co. has stopped all its manufacturing activities and closed the business operations after June 2016 and filed nil ER-1 return for the quarter ending September 2016. 4. It has further been impressed by the learned Advocate that M/s Suparash Electro Product Co. surrendered their central excise registration and ceased to be manufacturer and they have sold the business premises ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o deny the legitimate right of availing SSI exemption where the value of clearances of a manufacturer are only upto Rs. 1.5 crore in a financial year. Since, the appellant's value of clearance is less than Rs. 1.5 crore they are legitimately entitled for SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE. Since M/s Suparash Electro Product Co. was an independent entity before the appellant took over and purchased the factory premises from him and therefore the value of clearances of M/s Suparash Electro Product Co. cannot added to the value of clearances of them. 6. The learned Advocate appearing for appellant have cited following decisions in support of his argument :- (i) Jagjivandas & Co. versus CCE - 1985 (19) E.L.T. 441 (T) aff....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the above clarification no service tax liability arises on the appellant and therefore the impugned order-in-appeal is bad in law and prayed to be set aside. 8. We have also heard learned Departmental Representative who has generally supported the findings given in the order-in-appeal. 9. Having heard both the sides and on perusal of the appeal record, we feel that so far as the question of clubbing of the clearances of M/s Suparash Electro Product Co., a proprietorship firm with the appellant for determining the exemption limit under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 1 March 2008, we find that M/s Suparash Electro Product Co. has worked from the same manufacturing premises for a brief period between April 2016 to June 2016 and eff....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....during the previous year M/s. Kissan Products had exceeded the SSI limitation and benefit to be denied. This issue is also covered by the judgment rendered in the case of CCE v. Products & Ideas (supra) and CCE v. Power and Control (supra). The earlier Order-in-Appeal No. 3/89, dated 24-2-89 clearly held that the assessee and McDowell are not related parties and hence the question of adding payments received by Mcdowell to the goods manufactured by the assessee does not arise. There is no flow back of funds and therefore, adding marketing charges is not proper and correct in the light of the cited judgment. The second ground to deny the benefit is that on including the marketing charges received by McDowell Co., the clearance figures would ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....refore deserves to be set aside. 11. The second issue against the appellant is that they have short paid service tax on transport of goods by road service amounting to Rs. 69,748/-. It is a matter of record that the appellant have paid service tax on reverse charge basis on the goods transport agency service availed by him and service tax has been discharged on the 25% of the value of the service paid by him to the service provider. The Department's contention that for availing the benefit of the Notification No. 26/2012 dated 20 June 2012, as amended the condition "Cenvat credit on inputs, capital goods and input services used for providing taxable services, has not been taken under provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004". Since, the a....