9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 419X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of investigation conducted, the Revenue has come to the conclusion that the appellants have not fulfilled the criteria required for availing of the said exemption in as much as they have not commenced commercial production on or before the appointed date i.e. 1.03.2010. It was alleged that the appellants have not procured any requisite raw materials; purchased some machinery also after the relevant date; manipulated the documents to show the manufacture and sale of excisable goods availing said exemption. A show cause notice dated 05.05.2011 was issued to the appellants seeking to confirm central excise duty of Rs. 1,15,72,674/- and Education Cess of Rs. 3,47,118/- along with interest and penalties. The proposals in the show cause notice ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duction did not commenced from 31.03.2010. 4. Learned counsel submits further that learned Commissioner failed to appreciate the fact that control panels were removed for rectification; the appellants have purchased the DG set on 06.03.2010 as can be evidenced from the invoice; commercial production was permitted to be made on 27.03.2010; use of DG set without proper permission cannot be an offence under Central Excise law. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned order wrongly holds that the mills required for galvanization pipes and manufacture of tube were under construction; and that tube mill was without rollers attached to it and, therefore, commercial production could not have been commenced on 31.03.2010. These allegations ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has tried to establish the case on the basis of the visit of the central excise offices on 06.04.2010 and certain conclusions drawn on the basis of circumstances and thus comes to a conclusion that commercial production would not have been commenced from 31.03.2010. It is also mentioned that raw material/parts of galvanization pipes were purchased vide invoices dated 09.04.2010, 19.04.2010 and 04.09.2010, and, therefore, no production could be started on 31.03.2010. We find that the appellants argued that the raw material/galvanization pipes purchased were for extension of the existing plant and not for the original installation and the control panels were earlier working but were removed for repairs. We find that Superintendent, Central E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
