9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 512X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t aside. - Decision in the case of Surya Polypack Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE [2014 (10) TMI 559 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB)] - Decided in favour of assessee. - Excise Appeal No. 58028 of 2013 - Final Order No. 52269/2015 - Dated:- 13-7-2015 - Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) and Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical), JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri B.L. Narasimhan, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Pramod Kumar, Authorized Representative (Jt. CDR) ORDER Per. Ashok Jindal :- The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order denying benefit under Notification No. 50/2003-CE during the period 27th February 2008 to 14th July, 2009. The appellant set up a New Industrial Unit in Nalagarh, Himachal Pradesh and commenced co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which shall commenced their production in November 2007. These facts were in the knowledge of the Department that the appellant is going to start commercial production in November 2007 and that these set of facts the Revenue was having knowledge that appellant has set up a industrial unit and not paying duty which means that appellant is claiming benefit of Notification No. 50/2003-CE. He further submits that as appellant has filed declaration for claiming exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE on 15th July, 2009 and thereafter show cause notice has been issued by invoking extended period of limitation, the show cause notice is not sustainable in the light of the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of Herbal Concepts Healthcare Pvt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d is available to the Revenue in case duties have not been paid by reason of fraud, suppression or any willful mis-statement with intent to avail payment of duty. When the appellant was not required to pay any duty, if they would have exercised their option in writing, where is the question of malafide intention to evade payment of duty. Otherwise also we find that investigations were made by the Revenue with the appellants authorized representative, immediately after filing of declaration by them on 14/03/2008, even then the show cause notice was issued in 2011. We find no justification for the same and agree with the learned Advocate that the demand is wholly barred by limitation. The same is accordingly set aside alongwith setting aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
