9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1619X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n to produce additional evidence on record. 2. The appellant has also filed miscellaneous application to produce additional evidence on record. As these evidences are very much relevant to decide the issue in hand, the same are taken on record by allowing the application filed by the appellant. 3. The facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of steel and alloy bars. On 29-3-2010, the appellant filed declaration with jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner for availing area based exemption under Notification No. 49/50-2003-C.E., dated 10-6-2003 effective from 31-3-2010. The premises of the appellant were visited by the jurisdictional divisional officers and found that some construction activity was goi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as confirmed. Aggrieved with the said orders, the appellant is before us. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that in this case, the issue is whether the appellant has started his commercial production on 31-3-2010 or not. The appellant has filed declaration before the Assistant Commissioner on 29-3-2010 to avail the benefit of notification which is not disputed. It is further submitted that Director of Industries have also certified the commencement of commercial production from 31-3-2010 and Department of Excise and Taxation also issued certificate of registration and liability was fixed with effect from 31-3-2010. He also submitted that electricity connection was installed in their factory premises on 31-3-2013 at 5 pm. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions. For the remaining issues, he reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 6. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 7. In this case, short issue involved before us is whether the appellant has commenced the commercial production on or before 31-3-2010 to avail the benefit of Notification No. 49/50-2003-C.E., dated 10-6-2003 or not. The relevant part of the notification is extracted below :- "2. The exemption contained in this notification shall apply only to the following kinds of units, namely :- (a) New industrial units set up in areas mentioned in Annexure-II and Annexure-III, which have commenced commercial production on or before the 7th day of January, 2003, but not later ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and is included in the duty demand of Rs. 5,27,66,984/- confirmed by the appellant in the impugned order. Thus, the Department's allegation that there was no production by the appellant unit during March, 2010 and that the appellant have made only bogus entries regarding production during March, 2010, in their records is not compatible with the Commissioner's order confirming duty demand of Rs. 90,805/- in respect of the clearance of 30.40 Mts. of M.S. Ingots during March, 2010. 10 ....As discussed above, for determining as to whether the appellant had commenced commercial production on or before 31-3-2010, the quantum of production during March, 2010 is not relevant and what is relevant is as to whether the plant had been commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t had agreed that production commenced during February, 2007 but the only dispute was as to whether the said production could be termed as commercial production. The Commissioner found that the product produced during February, 2007 fetched a commercial consideration of Rs. 28.5 lakhs. Therefore, such production was held to be commercial production. The following is the relevant portion of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) : In the instant case the dispute relates to date of commencement of commercial production there is no scope for interpretation of the language of the Notification. Both the appellant and department agreed that the production was commenced during February, 2007. The only dispute remains whether the said production ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
