2004 (9) TMI 102

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd confirmed by the Collector, Central Excise and Customs (Appeals). CEGAT dismissed the appeal. 2. Background facts are : according to the appellants, they are engaged in the manufacture of articles of plastic i.e. Plastic insulated wares and vacuum flasks. They had two factories, one at Talegaon and the other at Chinchwad. The former one was considered to be the main factory. It was claimed that during the period of dispute, i.e. from 1-3-1990 to 21-8-1990, major portion of the articles manufactured by them in terms of value were exempt from Central Excise Licensing Control under Rule 174A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (in short 'the Rules'). Since all the goods manufactured in their main factory were fully exempt from duty during ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Chinchwad factory, the appellants took the stand that the said factory was a subsidiary unit of their main factory and all the materials required for the manufacture of goods were supplied by the main factory and the sales were also effected from the main factory. The Adjudicating Officer held that merely because exemption was granted under certain Notification, that does not make the product a non-excisable item even when the item was fully exempt. It was, therefore, obligatory on the part of the appellants to follow the requisite procedures before manufacturing goods at the Chinchwad factory. As regards the claim that the appellants were covered by Notification No. 11/88 (N.T.)-C.E., dated 15-4-1988, the adjudicating officer found that th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....submitted that the non-filing of declaration under Notification 11/88 was only, at the most, a procedural lapse and should not have resulted in levy of substantial tax liability. 3. The respondent before the CEGAT supported the orders of the Adjudicating Officer, as confirmed by the appellate authority. The CEGAT, on analysis of the factual position, came to a definite finding which was not disputed by the appellants that they had failed to comply with the requirement of submitting declaration under Notification 11/88. That being so, the orders passed by the departmental authorities were confirmed. 4. In support of the appeal, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that when the items were exempt from duty, there was consequentia....