Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Ruchira Papers Ltd. Versus CCE & ST, Chandigarh

2016 (2) TMI 146 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

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 progress report filed by the appellant for the period June, 2003 with IFCI, shows .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

city 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 expansion i.e. more than 25% of the installed capacity. In that circumstances, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ndal: 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 the appellant way back in 1980 and thereafter, their production installed c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y 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 further submits that in consequent to their application for increase in the ins .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y 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 appellant also submitted application to IPARA on 29.10.94 for approval of the produc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lenecking. 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 dated 26.09.2003 which gives the production obtained by the appellant from .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version