9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 505X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellants factory premises is situated at a plot of land bearing Dag No.913, Patta No.94 of Beltola Mouza, Village-Betkuchi, Kamrup (Assam). They claimed the benefit of area based exemption under Notification No.32/99-CE dated 08.07.1999 after its amendment vide Notification No.5/2002-CE dated 12.02.2002, when the area in which the appellants factory was situated was included in the notification. Vide the Deputy Commissioner s Order dated 10.12.2002, the benefit was extended w.e.f. 12.02.2002. During the period December, 2002 to August, 2005, the appellant received refund amounting to Rs. 66,89,962/- in terms of the Notification No.32/99-CE. The department carried out investigation against the appellant, commencing with visit to their p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... up for verification, the various invoices under which the appellants claim to have procured the various machineries for use in the factory. However, the verification reports from various jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities indicated that the bills/invoices submitted by the appellants were fabricated and false and that no machineries were supplied by the respective suppliers to the appellant under the cover of these invoices. Only in two cases, the machines were found to have been supplied, but this pertained to the year 2003, i.e. after the date on which the appellant was permitted to avail the benefit of area based exemption. On this basis Revenue concluded that no new unit has been started at the above address in the name and style ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... carried out by the department has established that the appellant has not procured and installed new machineries in their factory. Consequently their claim that it is a new unit is false and hence they were not entitled to the benefit of area based exemption. Consequently, the refund claims were irregular and liable to be recovered. 6. Heard both sides and perused the record. The Notification No. 32/99-CE dated 08.07.1999 granting the area based exemption was amended vide Notification No.5/2002 dated 12.02.2002. After the said amendment, the site in which the appellant was situated was covered within the definition of industrial area and the appellant became eligible for such benefit. The claim of the appellant for the benefit of notificati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee, were in operation. Further, it was verified and confirmed that the commercial production of the unit was started on 25.05.2000. After verification of the connected records the benefit was extended vide the above order. Surprisingly, the investigation which has lead to the withdrawal of the benefit of the Notification was commenced as laid as 2005. The department has sought the list of machineries which was procured and installed before the grant of notification. The investigation focused on establishing that invoices under which such machineries were said to have been procured were false and fabricated and that no machines were found to have been supplied to the appellant. 8. At the time of visit of the officers to the factory, in 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
