9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (10) TMI 215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - MR.M.V. RAVINDRAN, DR. P. BABU, JJ. Represented by: Shri P.M. Dave, Adv. for Assessee. Shri S.K. Mall, A.R. for the Revenue. Per: M.V. Ravindran: This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 210/2006(Ahd-II) CE/Raju/Comr(A), dt.20.6.06. 2. The relevant facts that arise for our consideration are that the appellants are engaged in manufacture of P P medicaments of their own brand and on behalf of loan licencees. The appellants availed the benefit of Notification No.9/2003-CE, dt.1.3.03 in respect of their own manufactured goods and cleared them by paying Central Excise duty at concessional rate of duty as provided in the notification. It was observed by the lower authorities that the assessee has availed exe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... branded goods and consequently aggregate value should not be included in the value of branded goods. It is his submission that the lower authorities have tried to deny the benefit to the appellant holding that the factory falls under rural area, but no evidence has been produced for the conclusion that the factory falls under rural area. It is his submission that all evidences which are relied upon by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) were not before adjudicating authority and nor was it the case of the Revenue in the Show Cause Notice. For that purpose, we read the Show Cause Notice issued to them. 4. Ld.SDR, on the other hand, would submit that the benefit of Notification No.9/2003-CE was correctly denied to the appellant as the factory w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d at the time of issuance of Show Cause Notice to hold that the appellant's factory is situated in rural area. It is undisputed that the appellant did not claim benefit of notification for reduction of value of the clearances of the branded goods manufactured and cleared by them on payment of duty. We are of the considered view that the said notification shifts the onus of satisfying the condition on the assessee to claim the benefit of non-inclusion of the value of the goods of branded product from the aggregate value subject to production that the factory is located in rural area. On perusal of the records, we find that the assessee had never claimed this benefit, while Revenue is trying to thrust upon the assessee that the branded goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
