Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Parag Fan And Cooling Systems Ltd. And ... vs C.C.E. on 23 May, 2006
ORDER C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)
1. These appeals raise A common dispute, whether the two units, Parag Fan & Cooling Systems Ltd. and Parag Industries are two separate manufacturers, entitled to seperate small scale exemption. The units had claimed exemption separately during the year, 1997-98. However, investigations showed that the units are one manufacturer and separate exemptions are not available. Based on that finding, demands have been made.
2. We have perused the record and heard both sides. The impugned Order has given very detailed factual justification for treating both the units as of one manufacturer. There is no requirement to interfere with that finding. The appellants' units were not entitled to small scale exemptions as two manufacturers.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant points out that there is glaring error in the computation of duty liability, inasmuch as exempted clearances made to IIT have also been taken into account while computing the duty liability. Learned Counsel has pointed out that Para 3(a) of Notification No. 7/97 specifically mentions that for the purpose of determining aggregate value of clearances "any clearances which are exempt from the whole of the excise duty leviable thereon... under any other notification" "shall not be taken into account.
4. Clearly computation made by the Revenue is in violation of the terms of the small scale exemptions. Duty relief is due to the appellant on this count. Accordingly, duty demand of Rs. 2,21,672/- is reduced to Rs. 1,82,672/-.
5. Another submission of the learned Counsel is that penalties imposed on the appellants are not warranted in the facts of the case and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Armit Foods 2005 (190) ELT 433. It is being pointed out that a penalty imposed under Rule 173Q without mentioning the specific sub-rule attracted is not sustainable. This submission of the appellant merits acceptance since the impugned order does not specify the sub-rule which is being relied upon.
6. In the result, appeals are partly allowed by reducing the amount of duty as indicated above and setting aside the penalties imposed.
(Dictated & pronounced in the Open Court.)