9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (1) TMI 126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that it was done or bought another CD writers to satisfy Revenue. Having accepted the claim at the relevant time raising the issue of such a minuscule investment after four to five years is prima facie not justified. Considering the nature of exemption and the commodity manufactured and investment required, there was no way the Revenue could have stopped the appellants from availing the exemption by raising issues at the relevant time - Decided in favour of assessee. - E/1726-1727/2011 - Stay Order Nos. 395-396/2012-EX(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 20-1-2012 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa and Shri Mathew John, JJ. Shri V. Laxmikumaran, R.K. Hasija and Bapu, Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri Sunil Kumar, AR, for the Respondent. ORDER The Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mention penalty. 3. Revenue relied on the statements of Shri Vipul Bakshi, Assistant Project Manager and Shri Vinod Bangalia, Production-in-Charge of the Appellants, to prove their case that no additional CD writers were bought after the commencement of the notification and based on such evidence Show Cause Notice was issued. The notice is adjudicated by the impugned order. 4. The Appellants submitted that the details of investment made by the Appellants during the year 2005-2006 to 2009-2010 and explained how there was expansion in their capacity by more than 25% in both their lines of business namely manufacture of canned software and the service of digitization of maps. Their factory was visited by a team of officers on 18-1-2006 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n some flimsy evidence alleging that investments which may be worth a few thousands was not made by them at the time of claiming exemption. 4. The appellants have raised claims for alternate exemption under Notification No. 22/2009-C.E., dated 7-7-2009 and the subsequent Notification No. 17/2010-C.E., dated 27-2-2010. They have also raised the issue that they would be eligible for Cenvat credit of Service Tax paid by them, under reverse charge mechanism on input services, on royalty payment to the person abroad supplying software to be replicated. However, these issues were not argued at length since the matter was being considered for stay only. 5. The learned AR for Revenue points out that the appellants did not provide any evidence r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authorities at the relevant time have to be given more weightage rather than statements recorded by an investigating agency four to five years later from a few employees. If any objection that they were not eligible for the exemption, because they had not made investment worth a few thousands, was raised at the relevant time, they could have demonstrated that it was done or bought another CD writers to satisfy Revenue. Having accepted the claim at the relevant time raising the issue of such a minuscule investment after four to five years is prima facie not justified. Considering the nature of exemption and the commodity manufactured and investment required, there was no way the Revenue could have stopped the appellants from availing the ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
