TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (1) TMI 191
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ufacture of Cement. Both the appellants availed the benefit of SSI Exemption. The third appellant is the Managing Director of the first appellant unit. The Revenue proceeded against the first three appellants for suppression of production, clandestine removal and irregular availment of separate SSI exemption. The period involved in respect of clandestine removal is from 4/1998 to 10/1998. The period involved in respect of irregular availment of SSI exemption is 1998-1999 and 1999-2000. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand in respect of clandestine removals on both the appellants 1 and 2 and imposed mandatory penalty under Section 11AC of the CE Act. Interest under Section 11AB was also demanded. A penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was impo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the serial numbers in the said Table, and not separately for each factory. (ii) Where the specified goods are cleared by one or more manufacturers from a factory, the exemption shall apply to the aggregate value of clearances mentioned against each of the serial numbers in the said Table and not separately for each manufacturer. 5. From the above it is very clear that the clearances can be clubbed if a manufacturer clears from more than one factory belonging to him or if there is clearance by more than one manufacturer from a factory. In the present case, the appellant No.1 is a Private Limited Company and appellant No. 2 is also a Private Limited Company. Hence, they are distinct legal entities....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellant, the Show Cause Notice alleged that the quantity of 2170.280 MTs of Clinker, 257.035 MTs of Slag and 98.955 MTs of Gypsum have not been reflected in Form-IV Register. It was urged by the learned Advocate that even though the computer statement indicated 600 MTs of Clinker from M/s. P.R. Cements Ltd., Vijayawada, the factual position is that they had not received the same from them. The indication in the computer statement is only a proposal. Similarly, even though the computer statement indicates 300 MTs of Clinker from M/s. Kohinoor Cements Ltd., they had not supplied any clinker to the appellants for the last five years. A quantity of 380 MTs had not been indicated to have been received by the appellants in the computer sheet it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cement without payment of duty. No charges of higher consumption of electricity, labour, packing material have been alleged. The learned Advocate stated that production and removal without payment of duty has to be established beyond reasonable doubt and cannot be based on surmises and conjectures as has been held by various judicial fora. He relied on the following cases. 1. Amba Cement & Chemicals v. CCE - 2000 (115) E.L.T. 502 (Tribunal) 2. M.T.K. Gurusamy v. CCE - 2001 (130) E.L.T. 344 (Tri. - Chennai) 3. Deccan Granites v. CCE - 2003 (151) E.L.T. 582 (Tri. - Bang.) 4. &nbs....