9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 661X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Shimla has been placed on record dated 16.10.2008 wherein the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Shimla has sent a communication to Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Mukund Nivas, Panthagarh, Shimla which certified that the appellant has started a unit of Harbal Cosmatic in the state of Himachal Pradesh, this fact has not been denied by the Revenue with any cogent evidence. Therefore, the said communication is to be taken as the date of intimation to the department in term of Notification No. 49-50/2003 dated 10.06.2003. As it was in the knowledge of the department that the appellant has installed a unit of Harbal Cosmatic in the state of Himachal Pradesh, through intimation by General Manager, District Industries ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th mandatory undertaking for exemption under Notification No. 49-50/2003 dated 10.06.2003, therefore, they are liable to pay duty on their clearances. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant for the period 01.04.2008 to 17.11.2012 to demand duty alongwith interest and to impose penalties under the Central Excise Act/ Rules. The matter was adjudicated, the demand was confirmed by denying the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 49-50/2003 dated 10.06.2003 alongwith interest and penalties were also imposed. Against the said order, the appellant is before me. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the sole reason for denial of benefit of notification is that the appellant did not filed mandatory declar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it. In these circumstances, he prayed that the impugned order is to be set-aside. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. AR for the Revenue opposed the contention of the Ld. Counsel and submits that it is a fact on record that the appellant is not filed any mandatory declaration in terms of Notification No. 49-50/2003 dated 10.06.2003 and there is no communication was received by the department from the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Shimla. Therefore, they are not entitled to benefit of exemption Notification No. 49-50/2003 dated 10.06.2003. 5. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 6. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides, the sole issue before me is that whether any mandatory declaration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in the option were all available in the letter dated 15-3-2010 seen in the appeal records. The said letter was in connection with registration of the Unit No. III under Rule 9 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The registration as sought for has been given by the department on 19-3-2010. However, we note that the appellant indicated in the said Notification No. 76/2008-C.E., dated 24-3-2008 with reference to already existing unit (Unit-II) apparently no reference to area based Exemption No. 50/2003 was made when new registration was sought for Unit No. III. However, the monthly ER-I return which is a statutory return giving various details of excisable goods manufactured and cleared and the exemption availed was filed for Unit No. III for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
