9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted under the aforesaid notification. The argument merits rejection on another count also. The Tribunal has nowhere mentioned that the appeal was not being admitted in exercise of the discretion vested in it, under second proviso to Section 33-B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. - 7 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 24-11-2008 - R.B. Misra and Surjit Singh, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri Dhruv Agarwal, Sr. Advocate with Nalin Talwar and Ajay Kumar, Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri Sandeep Sharma, ASGI, for the Respondent. [Judgment per : Surjit Singh J. (Oral)]. - This appeal, under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has been filed by assessee M/s. Jai Ambey Containers Pvt. Ltd., against the order dated 20-2-2008 [2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imachal Pradesh, certain special concessions and exemptions from taxation are available to the Industries set up in that area. On 10th June, 2003, Central Government issued a notification providing, inter alia, that a unit set up on or before 7th day of January, 2003 would be entitled to certain exemptions, in case such unit had undertaken, on or after 7th day of January, 2003, substantial expansion by way of increase in installed capacity by not less than 25%. Appellant claimed benefit under the said notification claiming that he had added to the machinery already installed and because of that addition, installed capacity had increased by 55%. The Committee consisting of General Manager DIC, Nahan, Senior Scientist Officer-in-Charge NRTC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner (Appeals), which was challenged before the Appellate Tribunal, had been passed under Section 35-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, though the learned counsel representing the Revenue side says that the Tribunal had the discretion, under Clause (i) of the second proviso of sub section (1) of Section 35-B to refuse to admit the appeal. The submission that the Tribunal had the discretion to refuse to admit an appeal under the aforesaid Clause (i) of second proviso has been noticed only to be rejected. The Tribunal has the discretion not to admit an appeal under the aforesaid clause (i) of second proviso where the difference in duty involved or the duty involved does not exceed rupees 50,000/-. In the present case, the question did n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
