TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f branded goods, we hold that the appellant have not violated the provisions of Notification No.9/2003-CE dt. 01.03.2003. Accordingly, we hold that the appellant is entitled to exemption benefit under the provisions of Notification No.9/2003-CE dt. 01.03.2003 - appeal dismissed - decided in favor of respondent-assessee. - Appeal No. E/2233/2007 - Final Order No. A/70528/2016-EX(DB) - Dated:- 5-7- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods at normal rate of duty that is 16% Adv., it appeared to Revenue that for availing the benefit of Notification No.9/2003-CE dt. 01.03.2003, there was a condition that a manufacturer, who intends to availed exemption under this notification shall exercise his option in writing for availing the exemption under this notification before affecting first clearance, such option shall be effective fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .9/2003-CE dt. 01.03.2003 and further clarified that they were eligible for exemption on the aggregate value of clearance minus value of clearances made at full rate of duty being clearance of branded goods. 2.2 The SCN was adjudicated vide order OIO dated 9/10/06 and the proposed demand was confirmed with interest and further penalty was imposed to ₹ 50,000/- under Rule 25 of CER 2002. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent assessee have misused the exemption provided under Notification No.9/2003-CE dt. 01.03.2003. Further, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holding that the demand is hit by limitation as the SCN was served upon the respondent after a gap of 1 1/2 years and is also not correct. 3. The ld. Counsel for the respondent urges for dismissal of the appeal being without merit. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
