TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y indicates that the licensed capacity and installed capacity of the appellant was 30,000 MT p.a. and 26400 MT. respectively. The letter dated 17.07.2001 issued by the IFCI supplied by CA also proposed that the installed capacity prior to October, 2003 was 26400 MT. We also observe that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in another proceedings also held that the installed capacity prior to extension took place in the month of October, 2003 was 26400 MT. and the said order has been accepted by the department. In these set of facts, we also hold that prior to October, 2003 when substantial expansion took place in the factory premises of the appellant the installed capacity was 26400 MT p.m. The installed capacity was increased to 33000 MTs in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound that before expansion, the installed capacity of the appellant was 26000 Mts and the appellant has wrongly mentioned their installed capacity as 30000 Mts. in certain documents. Therefore, it is alleged that the appellant is not entitled to claim the benefit of the exemption notification no.50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003. In these set of facts, show cause notices were issued demanding duty from the appellant along with interest and the penalty was also proposed. The matter was adjudicated, demand of duty was confirmed along with interest and equivalent amount of penalty was also imposed. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before us. 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant started their unit in 1980 with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. On the other hand, ld. AR opposed the contention of the ld. Counsel and submits that letter from the Directorate of Industries dated 3.4.95 clearly indicates that proposed annual capacity of the appellant is 30,000 MT and their self-certification from time to time certified that the installed capacity was 30,000 MT. The appellant also submitted application to IPARA on 29.10.94 for approval of the product for expansion of the capacity from 16200 Mt per annum to 30000 MT per annum and the Ministry of Industries in their letter dated 11.1.96 mentioned the proposed capacity as 30,000 MT and the letter dated 3.4.95 issued by the Directorate of Industries also mentioned that the proposed annual capacity is 30,000 MT p.a. and as per IPARA pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... talled capacity of the appellant was 30,000 MT p.a. and 26400 MT. respectively. The letter dated 17.07.2001 issued by the IFCI supplied by CA also proposed that the installed capacity prior to October, 2003 was 26400 MT. We also observe that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in another proceedings also held that the installed capacity prior to extension took place in the month of October, 2003 was 26400 MT. and the said order has been accepted by the department. In these set of facts, we also hold that prior to October, 2003 when substantial expansion took place in the factory premises of the appellant the installed capacity was 26400 MT p.m. The installed capacity was increased to 33000 MTs in the month of October, 2003, which is substantial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
