9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1078X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ff 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 10.06.2003. The same was denied by the adjudicating authority but the Commissioner (A) has allowed the claim which was denied by the Department. Being aggrieved the Department has filed the present appeal. 3. With this background, we have heard Shri M.R. SHarma, DR for the appellant and Shri Hemant Bajaj, Advocate for the respondent. 4. After hearing both the sides and perusal of the record, it appears that in the assessee's own case, the matter has come up before the Tribunal reported as Packaging India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE Meerut 2013 (294) ELT 246 (Tri-Del) whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise Department had visited the appellant's unit for field verification and as per his verification report addressed to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, the appellant was found qualified for availing the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-C.E. From this it is evident that the appellant was entitled to area based exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-C.E. Even the department was treating the declaration filed by the appellant claiming exemption as submitted under Notification No. 50/2003-C.E. irrespective of clerical mistake regarding Notification No. 7. The judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Eagle Flask Industries Limited, supra, in our respectful view, is not applicable to the facts of this case. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one into technical details regarding the Notification No. mentioned in the declaration filed for claiming exemption. From the report of the jurisdictional superintendent of central excise, it is obvious that after field survey, the appellant was found eligible for exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-C.E. It is not the case of the department that at any stage the appellant became ineligible for exemption. Therefore, in our view, merely because of inadvertent clerical error regarding Notification No. in the declaration filed for the purpose of exemption, the appellant cannot be denied the benefit of Notification No. 50/2003-C.E., when he otherwise is eligible for the same. Thus, we find it difficult to sustain the impugned order which is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
