9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 599X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 8-9-08 passed by Commissioner, Central Excise, Meerut-I for maintenance of appeals against these orders. The Appellant Company - M/s. Pushkar Steels Pvt. Ltd., D 23-24-25 (khasra No. 48C, 49C 50C) UPSIDC, Industrial Area, Jasodhapur, Uttarakhand, have a factory for manufacture of M.S. Ingots. While Shri Rohit Kumar Gupta and Vasudev Singh are the Directors of the Appellant company, Shri Subhash Chand is the Authorized Signatory of the Appellant company. The point of dispute in this case is as to whether during period from 24-12-03 to June, 2007, the Appellant company was eligible for the benefit of the hill area exemption under Notification No. 50/03-C.E. The Appellant company had availed exemption under this notification on the ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... compounded levy scheme under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act and for that period, the Jurisdictional Commissioner vide revised ACP order No. 53/IFU/ACP/2000, dated 31-7-2000 had fixed their annual production capacity at 3 M.T. on the basis of the verification done by the Departmental officers. Consequent upon the announcement of Industrial Policy relating to the States of Himachal Pradesh and Uttranchal in December, 2000, the Appellant, in order to avail the benefit of notification No. 50/03-C.E., decided to enhance their capacity to 4 M.T. and after 7-1-03 they expanded their capacity to 4 M.T., General Manager, District Industries Centre, Kotdwara vide Capacity Certificate dated 16-2-04 has certified that the Appellant company, whos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner s findings in the impugned orders pleaded that non-entry at the check post of the machinery items supposed to have been received in the Appellants unit for substantial expansion, indicates that the substantial expansion of installed capacity is not due to installation of additional plant and machinery, that unless, there is evidence that increase in installed capacity from 3 M.T. to 4 M.T, was due to installation of additional plant and machinery, the duty exemption would not be available, that the Commissioner has correctly denied the benefit of duty exemption under notification No. 50/03-C.E. and that, therefore, the Department has a strong prima facie case against the Appellant and that in view of the above, this is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner s ACP order dated 31-7-2000. The Appellant vide letter dated 12-12-03 informed the Department that they have increased their installed capacity to 4 M.T. and vide letter dated 23-12-03 informed the Department about their intention of availing the exemption Notification No. 50/03-C.E., enclosing certificate dated 16-2-04 issued by General Manager, certifying that the Appellant have increased the capacity of their unit to 4 M.T., chartered engineer s certificate and also the invoices regarding purchase of capital goods and labour charges for installation indicating that the capacity of the crucible was increased resulting in increase in installed capacity. From paras 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 of the impugned order dt. 19-8-08 and page 9 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
