9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 640X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 010. The evidences submitted by the appellant show the commencement of commercial production and VAT paid clearances of excisable goods by the unit prior to 31.03.2010 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/2480/2012-[DB], E/60507/2013-[DB], E/50270-50271/2015-[DB], E/50473/2016-[DB] - Final Order No. 50711-50715/2017 - Dated:- 6-2-2017 - Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) and Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Mr. R.M. Saxena (Advocate) for the Appellant Mr. H.C. Saini, DR for the Respondent ORDER Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in manufacture of helmets falling under Chapter 65 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the disputed period, the appellant had filed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03.2010 as provided in condition 2(i) of the said Notification. On appeal against the adjudication orders, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the adjudged demand. Hence, the present appeal is before the Tribunal. 3. The Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that during the disputed period, the appellant had manufactured helmets out of semi finished shells procured from the market and subsequently, it had procured injection moulding machine in 2011. He also submits that the department in their letter dated 17.12.2012 addressed to the Registrar of CESTAT have confirmed that the party had purchased the semi finished goods i.e. raw shells as input for manufacture of helmets. He also submits that the commercial production wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has started its commercial production prior to 31.03.2010, in order to get the benefit in the Notification No. 50/2003 dated 10.06.2003. We find that the department in their letter dated 17.12.2012 addressed to the Registrar, CESTAT have admitted that the appellant had purchased semi finished goods i.e. Raw Shell and used the same in the manufacture of finished goods i.e. helmet. Such submission of the department corroborated the fact of issuance of invoice by the appellant showing payment of Central Excise Tax (CST) and also movement of goods from its factory to the buyers premises. The document submitted by the appellant proves the fact that the commercial production commenced in the factory of the appellant on 26.03.2010 and as such, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
