9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal No. E/52713/2016 - Final Order No. 50437/2018 - Dated:- 1-2-2018 - Hon ble Mr. Justice ( Dr. ) Satish Chandra, President And Hon ble Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member ( Technical ) Shri Shailendra Bharadwaj, Advocate for the appellant Shri R.K. Mishra, AR for the respondent ORDER Per V. Padmanabhan The appellant has a factory situated in Haridwar. They filed a declaration under Notification No. 15/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003, claiming the benefit of Area Based Exemption from payment of Central Excise Duty. As per the terms of the Notification, the manufacturers who set up a new unit in the area notified under the said Notification and commence commercial production on or before 31.03.2010 will be entitled to avail the be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .03.2010 to M/s Real Electronics. Accordingly, they have filed intimation that commercial production had started on 30.03.2010. (iii) The appellant has procured the various raw materials and components required for the manufacture of multimedia speakers and DVD players and have submitted copies of the purchased bills which are all prior to the date of commencement of production. But the department has ignored the same. (iv) The main evidence on which the department is relying is (a) The testing equipments are purchased by the appellant only after 31.03.2010. (b) The appellant could not produce the permission letter of the brand holder of Soyer and F D brands, by which the appellant was permitted to manufacture goods bearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ification No. 15/2003. The appellant has filed declaration and claimed the benefits of the Notification on 29.03.2010, and claimed immediately thereafter, i.e., on 30.03.2010 that the commercial production has been started. To verify such claims, investigations were undertaken by the department by visiting the factory premises on 07.04.2010. The department has alleged that the appellant has failed to commence commercial production before 31.03.2010, and hence, has denied the benefits of the Notification and demanded the duty for all the goods cleared from the appellant s factory. 7. After perusal of the various documents submitted by the appellant, we note that the appellant had already procured the various capital goods to be used for m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2010. However, the claim of the appellant is that it is possible to manufacture the goods without the testing equipments and minimum testing equipments required is only the multimeter. 9. After considering the full facts and circumstances of the case, and after perusal of the voluminous documents submitted by the appellant, we are of the view that the evidences produced by the department do not establish the allegation that the appellant has failed to commence commercial production before 31.03.2010. The genuineness of the first consignment of 10 Multimedia Speakers manufactured prior to 31.03.2010 is established. Consequently, we are of the view that the appellant will be entitled to the benefit of the Notification No. 15/2003. 9. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
