Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (10) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2015 (10) TMI 1800 - AT - Central Excise


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.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates