Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 1800 - AT - Central ExciseArea Based exemption - Denial of benefit of exemption Notification No. 50/03-CE dated 10/06/03 w.e.f. 15/03/10 - Held that - Appellants factory is located at Khasra No. 177 and 288/1 in Village Sarvarkheda of Tehsil Kashipur of Distt. Udham Singh Nagar. The Department denied the exemption on the ground that in the respective entry in the Notification, there is no village named Sarvarkheda and Khasra No. 288/1 also does not figure and instead there is Khasra No. 288/A. However, it is seen that the exemption Notification No. 50/03-CE has been amended by Notification No. 7/14-CE and against Sl. No. 28 of the original notification in column 3, for the entry Sakharkheda the entry Sarverkheda has been substituted and similarly against Sl. No. 28 in the entry in column 4, for the figures and letters 285A and 288A, the figures and symbols 285/1 and 288/1 have been substituted. In view of this, there is no ground for denial for exemption, as the appellants unit is located in Village Sarverkheda at Khasra No. 177 and 288/1 and both the Khasra numbers are figuring in the exemption notification. The impugned order is, therefore, is not sustainable. The same is set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues: Denial of exemption under Notification No. 50/03-CE due to discrepancies in village name and plot number.
Analysis: The appellant, a manufacturer of PVC pipes and fittings, faced denial of exemption under Notification No. 50/03-CE due to discrepancies in the village name and plot number mentioned in the notification. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner had denied the exemption and confirmed a duty demand against the appellant, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant's unit was located at Khasra No. 177 and 288/1 in Village Sarverkheda, but the notification did not mention this village name or the exact plot number. The appellant argued that an amendment to the notification, Notification No. 7/14-CE, substituted the village name from Sakhardkeda to Sarverkheda and corrected the plot numbers to include 288/1. The appellant contended that these changes rendered the denial of exemption invalid. During the hearing, the appellant's counsel highlighted the specific amendments made to the notification, emphasizing that the village name and plot numbers now aligned with the appellant's actual location. On the other hand, the Department's representative defended the initial denial of exemption based on the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal considered both sides' submissions and examined the records. Upon review, the Tribunal noted that the appellant's factory was indeed situated in Village Sarverkheda at the specified plot numbers, which now matched the amended notification post the changes made in Notification No. 7/14-CE. As a result, the Tribunal found no valid grounds for the denial of exemption, as the appellant's location now aligned with the corrected details in the notification. Consequently, the impugned order denying the exemption was deemed unsustainable and set aside. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and the stay application, ruling in favor of the appellant.
|