TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 203
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....J.S. Table Wares is a partnership firm, engaged in the manufacture and trading of articles of table ware, kitchen ware, and other household articles falling under Chapter Sub-Heading No.7323,7418,7615 respectively of the First Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Respondent is engaged in manufacturing and trading of different kinds of items. Firstly, as per the undertakings of the Respondent, the items which were manufactured by it were completely exempted from the payment of Central Excise duty vide Notification No.10/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006. It was only with effect from 01.03.2011, certain goods were made chargeable to duty @ 1% ad valorem under Notification No.01/2011-CE and 2% ad valorem under Notification No.16/2012-CE....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1 to March, 2013 certain goods (total 19 items) that were being manufactured and cleared by the Respondent attract full rate of duty and do not fall under Notification No.1/2011-CE w.e.f. 01.03.2011. Further, they only allowed the SSI exemption. Hence, denying the exemption under the duty @ 1% ad valorem under Notification No.1/2011-CE w.e.f. 01.03.2011 and 2% ad valorem under Notification No.16/2012-CE w.e.f. 17.03.2012, without Cenvat Credit Facility. (c) For in period April, 2013 to March, 2014 in addition to point (b) allegation, the show cause notice also proposed that the 'bought out goods, which was only purchased from the unregistered person for trading purposes was alleged to be manufactured in the Respondent factory without....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... i.e. Parts of Kitchen/ table wares, Toilet Items, SS Box, Sigree/Tandoor and Brass Knobs. Based on these items, the demand on the value of clearance for period from April, 2011 onwards was confirmed. (b) The items that were claimed by the Respondent as 'bought out' after examining the evidence presented in the show cause notice and duly considering the submissions of the Respondent and the chartered Engineer Certificate, the Adjudicating Authority came to the conclusion that the Department's allegation is not substantiated by any credible evidence. Hence, such items are not manufactured by the Respondent and the duty demand on this account is not tenable. (c) As the value of items considered misclassified did not available ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... financial year and applying the same percentage for quantification for other two financial years. As such sale value of dutiable items for financial 2012-13 was Rs.5,12,545/- against total sate value of Rs.3,63,57,593/- which comes to about 1.40% of the total clearance. Therefore, the Adjudicating authority applied same percentage (1.40%) over entire period i.e. for 2008-09 to 2014-15 for calculating assessable value of dutiable items. The analogy adopted therefore not legal and proper for quantifying and confirming the demand." 6. Heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 7. We find that whereas it is clearly stated in Para 25 of Order-in-Original that the ratio is being used with respect to the portion of the value of 4/5 i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../-, RS.7,43,710/- respectively. As this is much lower than SSI exemption of Rs1.50 Crores under Notification No.08/2003 dated 01.03.2003 which was available to M/s JST for the period -prior to March 2011, I hold that no duty is payable by M/s JST for the period prior to March 2011." Moreover, Para 26 clearly says that during 2014-2015 no such items were cleared by the Respondent. 8. We further find that the Department has filed the appeal without application of mind, as the Order-in-Original clearly states the analogy which was adopted for quantifying the amount prior to 2011 as stated above. The Department, without reading the order, has filed the appeal in a vague and perverse manner which is liable to be dismissed. Furthermore, the De....