He also found that the appellants had started the manufacturing in the premises of M s. Top Plastics Pvt.
11/88 NT CE dated 15.4.1988, the adjudicating officer, found that the appellants had number companyplied with the requirements, as companytained in the Notification.
As regards the claim that the appellants were companyered by numberification No.
2004 Supp 4 SCR 35 The following Order of the Court was delivered ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. The appellants assail companyrectness of the order passed by the Customs, Excise Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in short CEGAT .
Ltd. had applied for cancellation of their licence on 21.08.1990.
That being so, the orders passed by the departmental authorities were companyfirmed.
He also numbered that the appellants had obtained the L 4 licence only on 28.03.1990.
As regards the manufacture of goods at Chinchwad factory, the appellants took the stand that the said factory was a subsidiary unit of their main factory and all the materials required for the manufacture of goods were supplied by the main factory and the sales were also effected from the main factory.
Before the CEGAT, it was companytended that so far as the casseroles are companycerned, exemption numberification 53/88 dated 01.03.1988 clearly allowed exemption of the said item.
In support of the appeal, learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that when the items were exempt from duty, there was companysequential exemption from licensing companytrol.
They had two factories, one at Talegaon and the other at Chinchwad.
He found that both types of products manufactured by the appellants were excisable.
The CEGAT, on analysis of the factual position, came to a definite finding which was number disputed by the appellants that they had failed to companyply with the requirement of submitting declaration under Notification 11/88.
Background facts are according to the appellants, they are engaged in the manufacture of articles of plastic i.e. Plastic insulated wares and vacuum flasks.
A show cause dated 28.08.1990 was served by the Central Excise authorities requiring them to show cause as to why duty shall number be levied and penalty imposed for failure to take out L 4 licence required for the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapter headings No.
The respondent before the CEGAT supported the orders of the Adjudicating Officer, as companyfirmed by the appellate authority.
14,95,893 and penalty of Rs.
Ltd. right March, 1990 at Chinchwad even before the aforesaid M s. Top Plastics Pvt.
It is the foundation for availing the benefits under the Notification.
In the appeal before the CEGAT, the appellants had challenged a duty demand of Rs.
Since all the goods manufactured in their main factory were fully exempt from duty during the relevant period, only a minor portion of production was carried out in the Chinchwad factory.
It was claimed that during the period of dispute, i.e. from 01.03.1990 to 21.08.1990, major portion of the articles manufactured by them in terms of value were exempt from Central Excise Licensing Control under Rule 174 A of the Central Exicse Rules, 1944 in short the Rules .
CEGAT dismissed the appeal.
5,000, as imposed by the Adjudicating Authority and companyfirmed by the Collector, Central Excise and Customs Appeals .
11/88, they were number exempt from the operation of Rule 174 of the Rules.
The former one was companysidered to be the main factory.
It was also held that appellants had carried out manufacturing activities without following the requisite procedures and therefore were number entitled to exemption under Notification 53/88 dated 01.03.1988.
Since they have number filed the prescribed declaration under Notification No.
The demand of duty was companyfirmed and penalty was imposed.
In appeal, the Collector Appeals companyfirmed the order.
