9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order per : S.S. Kang , Vice-President]- The appellant filed Misc. application for early hearing in Appeal No.E/2340/07. The Misc. application is allowed and the appeal is taken up for hearing. 2. Heard both sides. Appeal No.E/2340/07 is filed against the impugned order whereby the benefit of Notification No.50/03-CE was denied and the Appeal No.E/208/08 is filed against the order which is in respect of the demand after denying the benefit of notification. 3. Notification No.50/2003-CE dt.10.6.03 provides exemption of goods in the First Schedule and the Second Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act,1985 and other than the goods specified in Annexure-I and cleared from a unit located in the Industrial Growth Centre or Indus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing new machines and they have the evidence of purchase of the new plant and machinery. 5. The contention of the revenue is that when the applicants filed declaration for availing the benefit of this notification, the physical verification was done by Range Officer and as per the report of the Range Officer, the machines installed prior to expansion i.e. Hydraulic press and Elgi make air compressor were not found installed and two other machines namely listed spot welding set and Bench grinder had been kept aside as scrap. The contention of the revenue is that the Hydraulic press which was earlier installed in the factory was sold on 6.4.06 and contention of the revenue is that the appellant had not undertaken expansion by way of incr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pugned order after noticing the grounds for challenge to Adjudicating Authority dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. In the present appeal also we find that this verification report was not under challenged nor appellant produced any evidence regarding expansion of the plant. We find that verification report shows that old and used parts were replaced by the appellant and the old machine is simply lying in the factory as a scrap and the appellants were not discharged the onus to show that they had not undertaken the expansion by way of increase in installed capacity by not less than 25% even by replacing old machinery. In absence of such evidence, we find no infirmity in the impugned order whereby the benefit of notification was d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
