9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 107 - AT - Central Excise100% EOU - Clearance of Spent Salt and Spent Acid - N/N. 23/2003-CE dated 31.03.2003 - demand on the ground that the appellant have not taken a specific permission for removal for Spent Salt and Spent Acid from the Development Commissioner - HELD THAT - The Commissioner (Appeals) recorded in his finding that the appellant have not produced the evidence of their being status holder. In this position, we are giving opportunity to the appellant to produce the evidence of their being status holder, if it is so even though the appellant have not given intimation, the same may be considered as procedural lapse and benefit of Exemption Notification No. 23/2003-CE may be extended. The appeal is allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority.
Issues Involved:
- Entitlement of 100% EOU to clear Spent Salt and Spent Acid by availing exemption Notification No. 23/2003-CE without specific permission from the Development Commissioner. Analysis: The main issue in this case revolved around the entitlement of the appellant, a 100% EOU, to clear Spent Salt and Spent Acid without specific permission from the Development Commissioner under exemption Notification No. 23/2003-CE. The lower authority had upheld a demand against the appellant for not obtaining such permission. The appellant, although not present during the proceedings, had requested a decision on merit through a letter. The respondent, represented by Shri S.K. Shukla, reiterated the grounds of appeal. The Tribunal considered the submissions and records, noting the appellant's claim of being a status holder exempting them from the need for permission. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) had found that the appellant failed to provide evidence of their status holder status. Consequently, the Tribunal granted the appellant an opportunity to produce such evidence. If proven, even without prior intimation, the failure to do so could be considered a procedural lapse, warranting the extension of the benefit of the exemption notification. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed for remand to the adjudicating authority for further consideration. The judgment was pronounced in an open court on 13.03.2019.
|
