TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1465X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er four years) - Held that:- It appears that the appellant has filed the declaration belatedly to get the benefit of Notification 50/2003 retrospectively which is not permissible - The requirements of Notification No. 50/2003 is that the verification will have to be made on the spot at the time of starting of commercial production - The said requirements are mandatory. After the period of more tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellant. Shri R.K. Mishra, AR, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : Justice Satish Chandra, President]. - The present appeal is filed against the Order-in-Original No. 28/2015 dated 15-9-2015. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant established a factory for manufacture of pharmaceuticals products in Uttarakhand where the appellant was required to make a declar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ra, Ld. DR for the Department has relied on the ratio laid down in the Tribunal s order in the case of Satyabrat Swain v. Commissioner (Final Order Nos. 53827-53828/2014, dated 30-9-2014) [2015 (316) E.L.T. 106 (Tribunal)] and submitted that appellant cannot be granted the benefit of the Notification No. 50/2003 since they have failed in claiming the benefit before the last date specified in the N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the view that the benefit under Notification No. 50/2003 cannot be granted to the appellant retrospectively. Therefore, the impugned order is hereby sustained along with the reasons mentioned therein. 8. However, when the appellant is paying the duty for the period under consideration the appellant is entitled for Cenvat credit as per law subject to the satisfaction of conditions and verificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
