9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (1) TMI 579X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order]. The impugned order denied the benefit of Notification No. 41/99-C.E., dated 26-9-99 to the appellants for clearances of tea made in 2001- 02 and demanded duty of Rs. 2,25,860/-, applicable interest and imposed equal penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. The said Notification No. 41/99-C.E., inter alia, extends exemption to tea manufactured and cleared by a bought lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the Tribunal, the ld. Consultant for the appellants argued that a declaration as envisaged in clause (b) of the notification had been furnished to the authorities. A copy of the same is also submitted. It is also argued that the factory had worked during the relevant previous year as required in the notification to qualify for the exemption. Certain documents are produced to establish that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld not be relied upon to decide the dispute. As the appellants had not successfully refuted the allegation raised in the Show Cause Notice that they did not qualify for the exemption for the reason that the factory had not worked for at least six months during the year 2000-2001 before the lower authorities, a contrary claim could not be entertained on the basis of copies of some documents produc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not need any experience of running a tea factory to satisfy them, if the appellants had entitlement to the exemption for clearances of tea in the year 2001-2002. Even at this stage no reliable evidence has been produced to establish that the appellants had furnished a declaration envisaged in clause (b) of the Notification or that the factory had worked for at least six months during the financial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
