2020 (6) TMI 552

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for the Appellant Shri Rajeev Gupta and H.S.Brar, Authorised Representatives for the Respondent ORDER PER ASHOK JINDAL: The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the demand of duty has been confirmed against the appellant on the ground of denial of self-credit by denying the benefit of exemption Notification No.01/2010-CE dt.6.2.2010 to the appellant. 2. The facts of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... owed the exemption. But the said order was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals) who held that the appellant has invested Rs. 161.13 lakhs resulting in a substantial expansion of 24.46%. Therefore, there is a shortfall by 3.54 lakh, the benefit of exemption notification was denied. Consquent to that impugned order, the show cause notices were issued to the appellant to deny self credit take .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... circumstance, we hold that the benefit of exemption Notification No.01/2010-CE dt.6.2.2010 is available to the appellant. Therefore, the proceedings were not warranted against the appellant. 6. In the result, the impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief. (Operative part of order was pronounced in the open court)
Case laws, Decisions, Judgements, Ord .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X