9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 382X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -CE dated 1.10.2003. Upon acquiring the said unit, the appellant intended to continue to avail the said area based exemption for residual period in terms of the said notification. The Revenue by entertaining the view that they have not fulfilled the conditions of the notification initiated proceedings against them which resulted in the Order-in-Original dated 4.7.2014. The original authority denied the area based exemption to the appellant which was confirmed by the impugned order. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the lower authorities have erred in disallowing the concession to the appellant on wrong appreciation of the facts. His arguments can be summarized: (a) on 9.1.2014,the appellant intimated about sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in terms of the Board's circular No.939/29/2010-CX dated 20.12.2010 and Circular No.960/03/2012 dated 17.2.2012 . There is no case for denial of exemption to the appellant. 4. Learned AR supported the decision of the lower authorities. He submitted that M/s. Stanely Control who operated under area based exemption in 2009 stopped manufacturing and were virtually non functional at the time of purchase by the appellant. Further, the appellant have started their new manufacturing activity for manufacturing OSAA, as such they are not eligible for area based exemption. 5. We have heard both sides and examined the appeal records. 6. Admittedly, the facts of the case are that the appellant purchased and taken over M/s. Stanely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the exemption is extended to one unit, the change in its ownership would not jeopardize the admissibility of exemption for remaining part of the period. The guidelines have been issu with regard to the shifting of eligible unit to new location. In the present case, the evidence submitted by the appellant establishes that the eligible unit has been acquired by the appellant and manufacture of earlier specified product did continue in the new appellant's unit also. In addition, the appellant manufactured new product - OSAA.
7. In view of the above discussion, facts and evidence, we find no merit in the impugned order accordingly the same is set aside.
The appeal is allowed.
(Pronounced in the open court 11.08.2016) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
