2026 (3) TMI 588

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the Respondent ORDER PER : DR. D.M. MISRA These appeals are filed both by the assessee as well as Revenue against respective Orders-in-Original passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore, since involve common issues are taken up together for hearing and disposal. 2. Narrating the facts of appeal No. E/21116/2017 would suffice the purpose of appreciating the issues involved which need to be addressed by this Tribunal in disposing of the appeals. 3. Briefly stated the facts the facts of the case are that the assessee M/s. P.J. Margo Pvt. Ltd. registered with Central Excise department operating from the premises at Plot No.3A, Antharasanahalli Industrial Area, Tumkur is engaged in the manufacture of pesticides viz., w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....from April 1997 to March 2003 and reclassification of Ecoderma and Ecohume under Chapter subheading 3808 and 3105, respectively. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide Final Order No.1837-1841/2005 dated 25.10.2005 set aside the de novo order dated 12.10.2004. Hence, aggrieved by the said order, the department filed appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide Final Order No.21155-21159/2016 dated 17.11.2016 upheld the clubbing of clearances of both the units for SSI benefit, however, dropped the demand setting aside the charge of suppression and invoking extended period of limitation. A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Court dated 16.09.2015, this Tribunal analysed the evidences placed on record and categorically held that turnover of both units need to be clubbed to determine the liability of duty after extending the benefit of SSI Notification No.7/1997-CE and No.8/2003-CE as applicable during the relevant period 1997 to March 2003. It is his contention that following the said judgment of this Tribunal, subsequent to the period April 2003 - December 2006, demand notices were also adjudicated by the learned Commissioner. In the absence of any stay of the CESTAT's order dated 17.11.2016 no error has been committed by the department in adjudicating the show-cause notice issued subsequent to the period involved in the remand order of the Hon'ble Supreme Co....