TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 670
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....31.3.2006 interalia confirms the demand of duty of Central Excise amounting to Rs. 38,46,449/- (Rupees thirty-eight lac forty-six thousand four hundred forty-nine) and Rs. 1,90,42,672/- (Rupees one crore ninety lac forty-two thousand six hundred seventy-two) alongwith interest against Unit-I and II respectively of the appellant assessee M/s Meghmani Organics Ltd. It also imposes equivalent penalties on these units I and II of the appellant assessee. The impugned order further imposes penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lacs) and Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) on Shri Rameshbhai Meghjibhai Patel and Shri Manoj Mishra respectively, who are also the appellants. 2.0 The appellants have been represented by the Ld Advocate, Shri P M Dave ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) RLT 270 (Gujarat High Court relevant paras 8 to 10 c) Abdul salam AIR 1981 Jammu & Kashmir 21 iv) But the Commissioner has denied exemption without appreciating the correct factual position, and it becomes clear from a perusal of the summary statements attached to the order that the Commissioner has committed a grave error in holding that the appellants did not have adequate raw materials for manufacture of quantities of final products cleared in DTA at a particular point of time. V) The Commissioner has referred to only one example of June, 2004 concerning Unit-I for which the demand of duty has been Rs. 38,46,449/- but no further examples of any DTA clearance from Unit-I nor a single example for clearance made from Unit-II (for wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ompliance is not enough. The claimant should make his claim beyond the doubt. The benefit cannot be extended on mathematical calculations. * Commissioner of Central excise V/s Harichand Shri Gopal - 2010 (260)ELT3 (SC) * Mihir Textiles Ltd. V/s Collector of Customs 1997 (92) ELT 9 SC. iv) Wordings of the notifications 8/97 are absolutely Clear. It extends the benefit to the EOU only when the goods cleared in DTA has been WHOLLY manufactured by the indigenous raw materials. Even a small portion of use of imported raw material will debar the party from the benefit of the notification. * Century Denim v/s Commissioner of Central Excise - 2009 (241) ELT 135 (Tri-Del) * STL Exports Limited v/s Commissioner of Central Excise 2013 (288) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "On perusal of Summary Statements, I observe that they have made substantial purchase of raw materials from the domestic market in addition to import from overseas and also I feel that merely because they have not made proper records exemption should no be denied. I m of the opinion that the substantive right should not be denied for want of procedural non-compliance. But records and evidence should help me to come to fair conclusion." But the said premise has not been examined in detail by the Adjudicating Authority and the appellant did not get sufficient opportunity to produce the evidence that they had fulfilled the conditions of the Notification of 8/97-CE dt 1.3.1997. 7.0 During the hearing, the Ld Advocate for the appellants also....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the goods were manufactured WHOLLY out of indigenous raw-material is not fulfilled. 8.1 The impugned order also concludes that in case of the goods manufactured viz., Alpha Blue and Beta Blue no records were produced to establish that such products were manufactured WHOLLY from the indigenous inputs. When there was no evidence produced, the impugned order holds that the appellant was not entitled to the exemption. 8.2 The impugned order also discusses the issue if demand is time barred. The impugned order has given the findings that there has been wilful statements by the appellants and therefore, the demand is "not time barred" . In this regard, the appellant assessee has made the contention that the fact of availment of concessional r....