9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 904X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artment vide letter dated nil that they have purchased all the assets including plant & machinery of M/s. Satyam Mfg. Industries (SMI). Accordingly, ownership of the unit i.e. M/s. SMI stands transferred in their favour vide Memorandum of understanding dated 20.09.2012. It has also been informed by the appellant that as per para-3 of CBEC Circular No.960/03/2012 dated 17.02.2012, "any change in the ownership of the unit would not jeopardize the admissibility of the exemption for the remaining part of ten year exemption period subject to the condition that the new owner exercises his option in writing to avail exemption before effecting first clearance". Accordingly the respondent has enclosed the required declaration for availing the exempt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtered Accountant has not been filed so far. It is also found that during the period Feb., 2010 to July, 2012, no power was consumed due to unit being closed and the said amount was demanded by the Executive Engineer for the minimum charges. In the light of the above circumstances, it is crystal clear that M/s.Satyam Mfg. Industries have not fulfilled the basic and mandatory requirement of the Notification No.50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 as such the benefit of exemption under the said notification may not be admissible to you. You are therefore directed to take Central Excise Registration and to pay central excise duty on the clearances effected by you." 4. Being aggrieved, the respondent-assessee preferred appeal before the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. In this regard, I agree with the contention of the appellant that "nothing adverse can be drawn from the minimum power consumption or no power consumption during February, 2010 to July, 2012. That the notification lays emphasis that to become entitled to exemption the unit should have commenced commercial production on or before 31.03.2010 which condition the respondent had already fulfilled. If doubts had arisen, then prompt verification should have been done at the appropriate time. Further, the letter also alleges that the respondent had not filed any declaration for availing benefit of notification no.50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 nor filed intimation regarding commercial production . From the documents on record, I observe that the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal. 6. Heard the parties. 7. Having considered the rival contentions, we find that grounds of appeal are as under:- "That, as per their balance sheet total sales/clearances of finished goods affected by M/s.Satyam Manufacturing Industries during the years 2007-2008 to 2011-2012 are as under :- Financial Year Sale Amount (Rs.) 2007-2008 3,50,000/- 2008-2009 Nil 2009-2010 Nil 2010-2011 33,000/- 2011-2012 22,500/- It may be noted that till the cut off date of 31.03.2010 there was a single invoice showing clearance of goods valued at Rs. 3,50,000/- on 06.02.2008. There was no production /sale during the subsequent years too. That the Commissioner (Appeals) has not appreciated that such cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
