9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (2) TMI 424X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only difference between the two notifications is that whereas Notification No. 49/2003-C.E. is available to the units located in the entire State but relates to the positive list of goods mentioned therein, Notification No. 50/2003-C.E. is available to units located in specified areas. The purpose of both the notifications is to develop the area by expanding the benefit of exemptions from payment of duty of excise. The requirement of filing a declaration is a procedural condition. The benefit of the notification is not based upon the said procedural requirement of filing a declaration. In any case, declaration stands filed by the appellant. The fact that Notification No. 49/2003-C.E. was mentioned instead of Notification No. 50/2003-C.E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emoval of the goods from the factory of the appellant. 3. At this stage, learned Advocate submits that subsequent to the passing of present impugned order, proceedings for confirmation of demand of duty were also initiated against them, which stands culminated into an another order passed by the Commissioner confirming the demand. They are in the process of filing an appeal against that order along with stay petition. 4. At this stage, we find that the entire purpose of staying the operation of the present impugned order, as directed by the Hon ble High Court, has got defeated inasmuch as the demand already stands raised and confirmed. As such, at this stage, we find no justifiable reason to stay the operation of the present impugned or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fit of Notification No. 49/2003-C.E. is not admissible to the appellant has denied the benefit of Notification No. 50/2003-C.E. on the sole ground that the declaration does not stand filed under Notification No. 50/2003-C.E. For better appreciation, we reproduce para 11 of the Commissioner s order :- 11. Now I examine the second aspect of their representation that they fulfill all the conditions of the Notification No. 50/2003-C.E., dated 10-6-2003 and therefore if not under Notification No. 49/2003-C.E., dated 10-6-2003. They have submitted that since substantive compliance is there, procedural mistakes should not come in play to deny the benefit of exemption. The party have urged that the declarations filed by them under Notification N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... site declarations and has not exercised his option in writing before effecting the first clearance. We note that admittedly a declaration in terms of Notification No. 49/2003-C.E., dated 10-6-2003 was filed by the appellant. The purpose of filing a declaration is to put the Revenue on notice, as regards the appellant s option to avail the benefit of the notification. Otherwise also, both the notifications, being area based notifications are available to the units located in that particular area. The only difference between the two notifications is that whereas Notification No. 49/2003-C.E. is available to the units located in the entire State but relates to the positive list of goods mentioned therein, Notification No. 50/2003-C.E. is avail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
