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

2016 (11) TMI 696 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2016 (11) TMI 696 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - TMI - Area based exemption - N/N. 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 - non-filing of declarations as mentioned in Condition No. (ii) of proviso in the said notification - Held that: - The details as required to be filed in the option were all available in the letter dated 15.03.2010 seen in the appeal records. The said letter was in connection with registration of the Unit No. III under Rule 9 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The registration as sought for has been .....

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 month of March, 2010 on 10.04.2010. The said return clearly indicated Notification No. 49/2003 and 50/2003 alongwith details like description of goods, quantity manufactured etc. - The department has been intimated about the existence of the unit, nature of products manufactured and the exemption claimed under N/N. 50/2003-CE. We find that the same can be considered as adequate compliance of the condition of the notification. We again note that there is no other material ground on which th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

uring unit (Unit No.III) at Balbhadrapur Industrial Area, Kotdwar. Appellants were already having unit-I in Uttarakhand paying Central Excise duty. Later, they started Unit-II for which area based exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 was claimed and availed. The dispute in the present case is relating to the exemption availed by the appellants in Unit No.III. Stated in brief, the only ground on which the exemption under the said notification was sought to be denied is tha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on/ locations of factory/ factories; (c) Description of inputs used in manufacture of specified goods; (d) Description of the specified goods produced; (e) Date on which option under this notification has been exercised; 2. The appellants availed the exemption w.e.f. March 2010. A show cause notice 20.12.2015 was issued to the appellant to deny the exemption for the period March, 2010 to October, 2014 and to recover an amount of ₹ 1,75,93,271/- as they have not filed the declaration as abo .....

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 appellants have fulfilled all the requirements like location of the unit in the area covered by the notification and manufacturing such goods which are within the scope of the said notification and as such there is no legal infirmity in their availing the exemption. He further narrated the background of same goods declared for manufacture in Unit No. II and thereafter decision to create another unit (Unit No.III) for manufacture of automobile components. They have applied for Central Excise .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

al Assistant Commissioner indicated that they are already having a manufacturing unit with Central Excise registration. They have built a new building for different product with a different raw material and manufacturing unit and requested for issue of separate registration number for Unit No. III. All the particulars in Form A under Rule 9 of Central Excise Rules was filed. The letter enclosed various documents like list of plant and machinery, process flow chart, certified copy of first purcha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

appellant. In these circumstances, it is the plea of the appellant that full and adequate intimation has been given to the department about their manufacture and claim of Notification No. 50/2003-CE. As such, denial of exemption on the ground that separate declaration under the said notification has not been filed is not legally sustainable. 4. Ld. AR. reiterated the findings in the impugned order and stated that the intimation given earlier on 28.03.2008 by Unit No. II of the appellant cannot .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

fore the cut of date of 31.03.2010. These are admitted facts. The only reason for denial of the exemption to the appellant is that they have not filed the declaration as stipulated in the notification for availing such exemption. The original authority held that though Notification No. 50/2003-CE did not contain such condition initially the same was inserted vide Notification No. 76/2003-CE dated 05.11.2003. The original authority held that the condition of filing declaration with details is man .....

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