9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turing MS Bolt prior to 31.03.2017 and intimated the Department also. In fact, they have started procuring the machineries from 2016 itself. They have submitted invoices for the procurement of their main raw materials and the machineries required for manufacturing of their finished products namely MS Nut and MS Bolt. The commencement of commercial production on 31.03.2017 was also intimated to the Range Office vide letter dated 31.03.2017. However, there was no verification appears to have been done by the Range Officer immediately on receipt of the letter to check the correctness of the claim made by the Appellant. The doubt was raised by the department for the first time on 22.12.2017 when the appellant was asked to explain why the date o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Satyam Alloys was functioning earlier are not sufficient grounds to deny the benefit of the exemption Notification available to a new industrial unit. As per the Notification if the evidences available on record indicate that the new industrial unit has been established prior to 31.03.2017 and commenced commercial production prior to 31/03/2017, they will be eligible for the benefit of the Notification No.20/2007 - from the documents submitted by the Appellant, it is clearly established that the Appellant has established a new industrial unit and commenced production prior to 31.03.2017. The Appellant are eligible for the benefit of the Notification No.20/2007 dated 25.04.2007 - Appeal allowed. - Excise Appeal No.75294 of 2021 - FINAL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... them. They manufactured 800 kgs. each of MS Bolt and MS Nut and cleared 500 kgs. each and paid excise duty of Rs.5,625/- through account current (PLA) during March 2017. The investigation also found that most of the partners were partners of erstwhile Satyam Alloys, which functioned in the same premises where M/s. Sriram Fastners has come up as a new unit. It was also found that the office building and some of the old machineries belonging to M/s. Satyam Alloys were transferred to M/s. Sriram Fastners by issuing debit notes. The investigation conducted by Anti-Evasion unit alleged that the Appellant had claimed it as a new industrial unit after surrendering the earlier registration in the name of M/s. Satyam Alloys on 09.03.2017 and obtain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nying the exemption provided under Notification No.20/2007-CE dated 25.04.2007 to new industrial units. The Commissioner(Appeals) also upheld the Order-in- Original passed by the Assistant Commissioner vide his Order-in-Appeal dated 27.08.2020. The Appellant is before us against the above said Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner(Appeals). 4. Heard both sides. We find that the Appellant has started procuring various capital goods from 2016 onwards. They have installed their machineries from middle part of March 2017 and completed their installation on 30.03.2017. The Appellant claimed that they commenced their trial production on 30.03.2017 and started commercial production on 31.03.2017, the same day on which the new Central Excis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal steel bar. The Appellant has produced evidence for procuring of MS steel rod only and no evidence of procurement of Hexagonal steel bar has been submitted. He also argued that the Appellant has submitted application to the department for availing the benefit of the Notification No.20/2017 only in November 2017. They have no intention of availing the exemption notification 20/2007 dated 25/04/2007. Hence their claim of commencement of commercial production by 31.03.2017 is not acceptable. 7. We find that the documentary evidences submitted by the Appellant listed in para 4 above clearly indicate that they have commenced production of their finished goods as on 31.03.2017. We find that the Appellant has installed machinery for manufact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of duty. There was no objection raised by the Department when the refund claims were submitted by them for the months April, May, June 2017. We also find that the procurement of plant and machinery or raw material MS rod required for manufacture of their finished goods was not in dispute. The main contention of the Authorised Representative of the Department was that there was no evidence available on record to show the purchase of Hexagonal bars which are required for the manufacture of MS Bolt . The non availability of Invoices for the procurement of the raw material Hexagoanal bar for the manufacture of M S Bolt alone cannot be a reason for denying the benefit of Notification No.20/2007.The Department could have verified the correctness ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
