9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 979X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... based exemption Notification No. 39/2001 dated 31-7-2001 with original value of investment of Rs. 29,35,22,112/- in Plant and Machinery. The respondents commenced commercial production on 31-12-2005. 2. Assessee submitted three refund claims in respect of duty paid on the products manufactured by them but refund claimed in respect of duty paid on products Bricks and Calcined Bauxite was rejected by the Original Adjudicating Authority on the ground that these products were not being manufactured on or before 31-12-2005, the cut off date for commencement of commercial production in the Notification. On an appeal filed by the appellants, Commissioner (Appeals) passed the impugned order whereby he set aside the order of the lower authorities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant, machinery or capital goods after the cut off date in such a situation, exemption would not be available to this new product. The said new product would be cleared on payment of duty, as applicable and separate records would be required to be maintained to distinguish production of these products from the products which are eligible for exemption. The other situation is the one where a unit starts producing some products (after the cut off date) using the plant and machinery installed upto the cut off date and without any addition to the plant and machinery for example, in case of plant moulded products a unit may commence the production of different products simply by changing the moulds and dies in that case the unit would be eligib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judicating Authority. Further, he also pointed out that the department has not disputed that commercial production had started before 31-12-2005. He also submits that the claim was rejected by the Original Adjudicating Authority on the ground that bricks and calcined bauxite were not manufactured on or before 31-12-2005 and the points brought up by the learned DR and by the department in the appeal are totally new and are not relevant. He also submits that there is no dispute that the goods under consideration were produced from the same plant and machinery installed and commissioned before 31-12-2005. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. The issue involved in this case is whether the respondents have fulfilled the conditions under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rted therefore, we are left with the only issue that as to whether the manufactured products of the disputed goods subsequent to 31-12-2005 would make them ineligible for the duty paid in terms of the Notification. For this purpose, clarification issued by the Board have been considered by the Commissioner rightly. Even though we are aware of the fact that Tribunal is not bound by the clarification issued by the Board, we find that in this case clarification issued by the Board is elaborate and expands the scope of Notification and makes intention clear. Basically what emerges from the clarification is that the purpose of the clarification is to ensure that plant and machinery is installed within the duty date, commercial production started ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
