TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (8) TMI 253
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s have been filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 637/02, dated 22-10-2002 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals) Bangalore. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows. 3. M/s. Press Fab Precision Components Pvt. Ltd., was incorporated on 1-4-1999. Prior to that period a partnership firm M/s. Press Fab Industries was in existence. Two demands were raised against M/s. P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng submissions. (i) The OIO is self-contradictory and the demand is untenable in law as the appellant was exempted from total duty liability and there was a separate show cause notice on the appellant and the erstwhile firm. (ii) Instead of dropping the proceedings, the demand was confirmed. The appellants was not put to notice as to why the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e each company is a separate manufacturer and would be entitled to separate exemption limit. (iv) The Supreme Court in the case of Supreme Washers (P) Ltd. v. CCE [2003 (151) E.L.T. 14 (S.C.)] has held that Limited Company should be treated as a separate entity for the purpose of exemption limit. Board's circular of 1992 was referred to. (v) On 10-9-2004....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal Authority was right in demanding the duty from the appellant firm. 7. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. In the adjudication order, the Original Authority has held that no duty is payable for the relevant period by the appellant limited company. Moreover, during the relevant period, there was no provision to demand duty from the successor as a new provision to section 11 ....