Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2018 (10) TMI 957

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eets and foils chargeable to Central Excise duty under Chapter 76 of the Central Excise Tariff. The raw material for these finished products of the appellant is aluminium ingots. They have their manufacturing unit in Village Rampur Jattan, Nahan Road, Kala AMB, Distt. Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh. Since, their manufacturing unit is located in the areas specified under Notification No. 50/03-CE dated 10/6/03 and the product being manufactured by them is also covered for exemption under this notification, on 23/3/10 they filed the necessary declaration under this Notification No. 50/03-CE dated 10/6/03. 1.2 The exemption under Notification No. 50/03-CE in terms of its para 2 is applicable to the following kinds of units namely : "(a) new indus .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ng machine which is necessary for production of Aluminium coils/sheets, was being assembled and there was no electricity connection. Though there was a DG set, the electricity produced by the DG set was being used for welding etc. and some of the important machinery was still lying in packed condition. On 06/4/10, statement of Shri Dinesh Sharma, Supervisor of the unit was recorded, wherein he, while stating that the unit had started production on 30/3/10 and on that day 5.5 M.T. of aluminium coils had been produced with the help of DG set, stated that the same had not been sold as goods were not up to the mark and they had contacted their Chinese machinery supplier who had advised for re-arranging some of the machinery on the production li .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... xemption under Notification No. 50/03-CE dated 10/6/03 or for Notification No. 49/03-CE dated 10/6/03. 1.6 On appeal being filed to Commissioner (Appeals) against this order of the Deputy Commissioner, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 7/12/11 dismissed the appeal against which the appeal No. E/576/2012 has been filed. 1.7 Subsequent to the denial of the benefit of the exemption notification, the Commissioner after issue of show cause notice vide order-in-original dated 21/2/14 confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 15,27,002/- against the appellant alongwith interest thereon under Section 11AB and imposed penalty of equal amount on them under Section 11AC. The Commissioner confirmed this demand after adjusting the Cenvat cr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cial production before 31.03.2010. The said observation is beyond the imagination as certificate itself clearly shows commercial production has started on 31.03.2010 and during the cross examination Shri. Tilak Raj Sharma has stated that they have physically verified the unit, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable. 5. On the other hand, the ld. AR supported the impugned order and submits that from the examination and cross examination of the witnesses, it is not coming out when the physically visited the factory premises of the appellant. In the absence of that it cannot be concluded that they had started commercial production on 21.03.2010. Further, he submitted that the appellant has not started their commercial production and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... receipt of this order." 8. As per the said directions, the adjudicating authority was required to cross examine of Shri. Dinesh Sharma, Supervisor of the appellant company and also the Members Secretary, Single Window Clearance Agency, kala Amb (HP) and to consider other evidences on record, thereafter to decide whether the commercial production had started before 31.03.2010 or not? 9. We find that in compliance to the directions given by this Tribunal, both the witnesses were examined and it was revealed that the commercial production was started before 31.03.2010. The objection taken by the Ld. AR that some of the machinery has been imported was cleared by the appellant after 31.03.2010. We find that the same was not the subject matte .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates