9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1030X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing extended period - appeal allowed on the ground of limitation. - E/1814-1816/2011-EX [DB] - FINAL ORDER NO.56269-56271/2017 - Dated:- 23-8-2017 - Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) and Mr. B.Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Present for the Appellant : Mr.A.K. Prasad, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Mr.H.C. Saini, D.R. ORDER These 3 appeals are against order dated 07.04.2007 of Commissioner (appeals), Delhi II. The main appellant is having a unit at Dharamkot, Paonta Sahib District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh, manufacturing branded Ayurvedic and cosmetic goods. They were availing benefit of area based exemption in terms of Notification No.50/2003 dated 10.06.2003. Based on certain information that the main app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods are cleared to the customers. Based on the fact that labelling attracts the provisions of deemed manufacture in terms of notes in chapters 30 and 33, the Revenue is proceeding to hold that the actual manufacture of the impugned goods occurred in New Delhi and as such area base exemption is not available to the appellant. It is submitted that the requirement of labelling is as per the statutory obligations in terms of Weights and Measures Act and Rules made there under. The appellants had bonafidely belief that fully manufactured items when transferred to godown and further labelling done in godown will not change their status of the claim of area based exemption. In the godown they have dealt with only the product, which are manufacture ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only considering the sustainability of demand on limitation. Perusal of the impugned order as well as the original order indicates that the only reason for invoking extended period is recorded as non-intimation of labelling process to the jurisdictional officer. The submissions of the appellant during the stage of investigation as well as before the lower authorities, makes it clear that the goods have been manufactured in Himachal Pradesh and labelling was done in the godown in terms of statutory requirement, before marketing. The appellants apparently could not have gained anything by having labelling in godown and there by intending to evade duty on a product, which is manufactured at Himachal Pradesh, eligible for area based exemption. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
