Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (2) TMI 146 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2016 (2) TMI 146 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - 2016 (332) E.L.T. 139 (Tri. - Del.) - Area based exemption - Denial of exemption under notification no.50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 - appellant has wrongly mentioned their installed capacity as 30000 Mts. in certain documents - duty demand along with interest and the penalty - Held that:- In this case although the appellant sought proposed annual capacity in the year 1995-96 to 30,-000 MT p.a. but the installed capacity was only 26400 pm.

The progr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

missioner (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 exp .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Advocate For the Respondent : Shri S. Naunthuk, Joint CDR ORDER Per Ashok Jindal: The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order demanding duty by denying exemption under notification no.50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is manufacturer of craft papers at their factory which is located at Kala-Amb of Himachal Pradesh and clearing the goods duty free by claiming exemption under notification no.50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003. The unit was installed by .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s 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 w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the proposed annual capacity of the appellant would be 30,000 MT but the only increase in the installed capacity was of 21,000 MT. He further submits that from the various documents it has been proved that their installed capacity was 26400 MT. In the month of October, 2003, the installed capacity was increased to 33000 MT, which is 25% increase in the existing installed capacity. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of exemption notification no.50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2002. He fur .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e said order has been accepted by the Department. In that situation, the duty cannot be demanded from the appellant. Therefore, the impugned order is to be set aside. 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 appellan .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

way of expansion from 21000 MTs to 26400 MTs. and 2730 MTs by way of de-bottlenecking. Therefore, in terms of notification no.50/2003 dated 10.06.2003, the appellant is not entitled for the benefit of exemption notification. 5. Heard both the sides and considered the submissions. 6. In this case although the appellant sought proposed annual capacity in the year 1995-96 to 30,-000 MT p.a. but the installed capacity was only 26400 pm. As per various documents viz. Chartered Engineers s certificate .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version