2009 (3) TMI 301

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... K. Sharma, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.S. Kang, Vice-President]. - Heard both sides. 2. Appellant filed this Appeal against the impugned order whereby benefit of Notification No. 20/07-C.E., dated 25-4-2007 was denied. As per the condition of the Notification the exemption from payment of Central Excise duty is only in respect of a new industrial unit which commenced commercial produ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in respect of sleepers which were yet to be inspected by the Railways before the final approval therefore the same should be treated as trial production. During argument the learned Consultant submitted that the appellant has recovered the Central Excise duty in respect of clearance made under the contract. 4. The contention of Revenue is that the Appellant started commercial production in the mo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the notification hence are not entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 20/07-C.E. From this it is admitted by the appellant that duty of excise is already recovered from the railways. In these circumstances we find no infirmity in the impugned order thereby the benefit of Notification is denied, the Appeal is dismissed. Misc application is also disposed of in same terms. (Pronounced and dict .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X