9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1455X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t which fact has not been disputed by the Ld. Commissioner. Since, no separate records format has been prescribed by the jurisdictional Commissionerate, there is no reason to deny the exemption. The contention made by the Ld. Commissioner for the period in dispute (2003-04 to 2007-08) that BIS standards have not been complied, is completely mis-conceived inasmuch as no such condition has been prescribed in the subject exemption notifications. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No. 291 of 2009 - FINAL ORDER NO. 75528/2020 - Dated:- 28-1-2020 - MR. P.K.CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR.P.VENKATA SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri S.P.Majumdar, Advocate for the Appellant Shri S.Mukhopadhyay, Au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is no legal requirement to comply with BIS specifications for the purpose of availing the exemption from payment of central excise duty under the afore-mentioned notifications. On perusal of the conditions prescribed for the prior period in dispute i.e. 2003-04 to 2007-08, no such condition was prescribed. The Ld. Advocate has relied upon the Apex Court s decision in the case of Comm of Customs (Preventive) vs. Reliance Petrchm Ltd 2008 (227) ELT 3 (SC) to submit that interpretation of exemption notification depends upon the nature and extent thereof, and the terminologies used in the notification have an important role to play. He vehemently argued that there is no reason to insert the condition which is not appearing in the very exemption ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s mentioned that the jurisdictional Commissioner will notify the manner in which information will be submitted by the appellant. It is the submission of the ld. Counsel that for the purpose, no prescribed form was made available by the jurisdictional Commissioner. First time, the required form was published being Notice No. 1/2009, dated 27-1-2009 i.e. much after the disputed period. Hence, there was no occasion to supply the information during the period under dispute. 4. From the record, it appears that the appellant was using more than 40% of fly ash in manufacture of bricks and entire record was maintained in ER-4 which was also produced before the lower authorities. 5. After hearing both sides and on perusal of record, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
