9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of duty on goods mentioned in the intimation dated 31/03/2010 - benefit of exemption allowed. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - APPEAL No. E/82/2011-EX [ DB ] - FINAL ORDER NO. 70919/2018 - Dated:- 13-12-2017 - Hon ble Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member ( Judicial ) And Hon ble Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member ( Technical ) Shri Rajeev Ranjan (Joint Commr.) AR for Appellant Shri Kapil Vaish (C.A.) for Respondent ORDER Per : Anil Choudhary The present appeal is filed by Revenue arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.331-CE/MRT-II/2010 dated 30/09/2010 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Customs Central Excise, Meerut-II. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent assessee had been availing area b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Division office on 06/04/2010 after the due date whereas the option dated 31/03/2010 was received in the Range office on 31/03/2010 within the stipulated time. The description of goods mentioned in the option dated 29/03/2010 were also included in the option dated 31/03/2010. Though the option dated 31/03/2010 were received in the Division office after the due date but the same was received in the range office within the due date. Thus, fulfilled the one of the condition as laid down in proviso (ii) of the said Notification. The receipt of option in the Range office is sufficient to claim the exemption from the payment of duty on the goods mentioned in the option dated 31/03/2010 which can be treated as receipt by the department in due ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intimation dated 31/03/2010 have been received in Range Office on 31/03/2010. He further submits that Board Circular dated 20/12/2010 allowed addition in products even after 31/03/2010; their case is covered by following decisions of this Tribunal in the case of Maha Lakshmi Packages vs. CCE, Chandigarh-I 2015 (329) E.L.T. 823 (Tri.-Del.) and Packaging India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Meerut 2013 (294) E.L.T. 246 (Tri.-Del.). 8. Having considered the rival contention and on perusal of records we find that there is no dispute that respondent assessee had setup its industrial unit in January, 2010 itself and had submitted intimation also. With regard to the requirement of intimation, the relevant portion of the Notification reads as under:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
