9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1078X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3013/2017 - Dated:- 19-4-2017 - Mr. (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President and Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Technical Member Present Shri M.R. SHarma, DR for the appellant Present Shri Hemant Bajaj, Advocate for the respondent ORDER Per Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra: The present appeal is filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 111/2011 dated 28.04.2011. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent are manufacturing plastic film printed and laminated in roll form and plastic film printed and laminated in pouch form classifiable under the Tariff Items 39209299 and 39239090 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. The respondent has claimed area based exemption as per notification no. 50/2003-CE dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted. Perusal of schedule A of lease deed would show that in this schedule it is clearly mentioned that plot in question is located in Khasra No. 169, 170, 171 within the limit of field of Eledeco Industrial Park, Sitarganj, Distt. Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand. Thus, it cannot be said that the appellant had not supplied complete information regarding Khasra No. of the appellant s unit as required under Notification No. 50/2003-C.E. Further, on perusal of the records, we find that pursuant to the declaration submitted by the appellant, the jurisdictional Superintendent of Excise Department had visited the appellant s unit for field verification and as per his verification report addressed to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... number of notification under which the exemption was sought was mentioned as 49/2003-C.E. instead of 50/2003-C.E. Therefore, this being a case of inadvertent error, ratio of above referred judgment of the Supreme Court cannot be extended to this case. 8. The real question required to be addressed by the adjudicating authority was whether or not the appellant fulfilled the condition of eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-C.E. However, on reading of the impugned order, we find that the Commissioner (Adjudication) instead of addressing to the real issue has gone into technical details regarding the Notification No. mentioned in the declaration filed for claiming exemption. From the report of the jurisdictional superi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
