Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S Brindavan Beverages (P) Ltd. And Ors on 15 June, 2007
10.?There is no allegation of the respondents being parties to any arrangement. In any event, no material in that regard was placed on record. The show cause notice is the foundation on which the department has to build up its case. If the allegations in the show cause notice are not specific and are on the contrary vague, lack details and/or unintelligible that is sufficient to hold that the noticee was not given proper opportunity to meet the allegations indicated in the show cause notice. In the instant case, what the appellant has tried to highlight is the alleged connection between the various concerns. That is not sufficient to proceed against the respondents unless it is shown that they were parties to the arrangements, if any. As no sufficient material much less any material has been placed on record to substantiate the stand of the appellant, the conclusions of the Commissioner as affirmed by the CEGAT cannot be faulted.
8.7 In view of the ratio laid down in Brindavan Beverages (P) Ltd. (supra), when PBPL was not within the knowledge of the fact whether LFFL had crossed the aggregate value of clearances prescribed for SSI benefit and further, when the belief that the former had not, was strengthened by way of certificates issued by the Range Superintendents, even as on 12.4.1993, in our view, the benefit of SSI exemption cannot be denied to PBPL not only for the impugned period covered by Notification No.175/86-CE but also that covered by Notification No. 1/93-CE. Hence that part of the impugned order which has upheld the demand of Rs.38,30,633/- on an allegation of wrong availment of SSI exemption cannot be sustained and will require to be set aside. So ordered.