9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (12) TMI 370X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed the certificate issued by the Registrar of Companies. In this situation, the application is allowed and the cause title is changed to M/s. Ambuja Cement Eastern Ltd. The applicants also filed another application No. C/370/02-C for producing additional documents. We find that the appellant wants to produce the certificate issued by the Head Clerk of Railway. The certificate is undated, nor it is made clear in the certificate whose asking this certificate was issued. The other document, the appellant wants to produce is the certificate issued by their own Senior Sales Officer. The averments made in the certificate are similar to the pleading made in the appeal. This is neither a dcument nor it is a piece of evidence. In the circumstance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The contention of the appellants is that the goods were cleared from the warehouse before 1-4-90, therefore in view of Rule 9A of the Central Excise Rules, the rate of duty applicable prior to 1-4-90 is applicable. 6. The contention of the appellants is that the railway receipts i.e. RR were issued subsequently by the railway department at the time these racks reached Bhatapara Railway Station located at distance 17 kilometre from the factory. This practice of issuing RR at the time when the racks reached at Bhatapara Station was changed from month of August, 1999 and now the railway started issuing the railway receipts at the time the drawn out memo was prepared. 7. The contention of the Revenue is that the railway receipts in respec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) E.L.T. 769 (S.C.) held that a person invoking an exception or exemption provision to relieve him of the tax liability must establish clearly that he is covered by the said provision. In case of doubt or ambiguity, benefit of it must go to the State. 11. We find that in this case the onus is on the appellant to prove that the cement in question was cleared from the factory on or prior to 31-3-90. The contention of the appellants is only that railway receipts were issued by the railway department at the time of receipt of wagons at the railway station after loading. The appellants have also relied upon the drawn out memo signed by the some railway officials. The appellants had not produced any evidence from the railway department in respe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
