9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 687X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r : Devender Singh The Revenue is in appeal against the order dated 23.12.2005 Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Respondents are availing the benefit of notification No. 50l2003-CE dated 10.06.2003. One of the conditions of the said notification is that the manufacturer shall exercise his option to avail notification in writing before affecting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. The Ld. AR reiterated the grounds mentioned in the Revenue appeal and stated that the said declaration had also not been received in the Range office. A copy of the declaration was produced which bore the receipt stamp dated 01.04.2004. 4. On perusal of the records and considering the oral submissions, we authority had satisfied himself that the declaration dated 01.04.2004 had been filed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue has not challenged the receipt stamp dt. 01.04.2016 on the party's letter as fraudulent. Neither has any aspersion been cast on the authenticity of the verification report made by the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. Its main ground is that the declaration has not been found in the office of Divisional Assistant Commissioner. If the Revenue suspected that the Jurisdictional Assis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E, Chandigarh Vs. Nalagarh Steel Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. [2013 (293) ELT 751 (Tri-Del), the Tribunal has held as below: 7. Revenue has not disputed the fact of filing the earlier declarations in the months of July and August, 2003. The only objection raised by the Revenue is that after introduction of the Notification No. 76l2003, the respondent should have filed a fresh declaration in terms of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
