Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (8) TMI 565 - CESTAT, NEW DELHIWaiver of pre-deposite - Area base exemption - under Notification No. 49/03-C.E., dated 10-6-2006 - Expansion carried out by way of increased installed capacity of 25% - In July, 2002, the appellants themselves had informed U.P. Financial Corporation that they had undertaken the project to improve the production capacity by approximately 25% and the same was in operation within 12 months and it could show the results - Further, on 18-1-2003, they had reported that modernization project was still in progress - They had nowhere stated that modernization had started on or after January, 2003, rather it was continuous process which had commenced prior to July, 2002 - The claim of the appellants of having procured machines from the firm after 7th January, 2003 - Even invoice in relation to one of the products which stated to be procured in relation to expansion programme of the appellants is dated 23-7-2002 -If the expansion programme had commenced on or after January, 2003, how and why the product in that regard could have been procured in July, 2002 in relation to such expansion programme - Obviously it was for the appellants to disclose that if they were interested to claim the benefit for which they had to satisfy that they had complied with the requirements of the conditions prescribed under the notification - Rejection of benefit found to be correct. Financial hardship - the appellants in the applications for stay have stated that due to fire in the factory on 15-11-2007, the appellants were unable to pay term loan instalment and interest and therefore the bankers had re-scheduled the payment of term loan for the period December, 2008 to December, 2010 - Even the chart discloses fall in the production percentage though the actual production shows constant increase year by year - The re-scheduling of the term loan was for the purpose of payment from 31st March, 2010 - They are already in August, 2010 - Financial hardship is to be considered as on the date of consideration of the matter - Hence, no case has been made out for total waiver of the entire amount demanded under the impugned order.
|