9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1781X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gust, 2009 to 31st July, 2010 the appellants have removed finished excisable goods i.e. the said hand held computers from their factory without payment of Central Excise duty. During the relevant period, appellants were availing exemptions from payment of Central Excise duty under the notification No. 49/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003. Denying the said exemption to the appellants, that a show-cause Notice No. 12604 dated 09.09.2010 was served upon them demanding the excise duty amounting to Rs. 8701880/- along with the interest at the appropriate rate and the proportionate penalty. The said proposal has been confirmed vide the order under challenge i.e. Order-in-Original No. 18 dated 28.05.2014, being aggrieved the Appellant is before this Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... med by Hon'ble Supremet Court in Commissioner v. Indica Industries Pvt. Ltd., 2018 (360) ELT A124 (S.C.). CCE, Chandigarh v. Nalagarh Steel Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd., 2013 (293) ELT 751 (Tri.-Delhi). Mansi Steels P Ltd. v. CCE, Patna, 2009 (248) ELT 426 (Tri-Kolkata). 4. With respect to the imposition of penalty, it is submitted that the present dispute is arising of interpretation of provision contained in the impugned notification, no malafide can be alleged against the Appellant and as such no question of penalty imposition at all arises. Order under challenge is accordingly prayed to be set aside and appeal is prayed to be allowed. 5. While rebutting these arguments, the learned Department Representative has justified the order u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... factured by the Appellant are covered by the impugned exemption notification. The Appellant unit is also admittedly located in the Sigaddi Growth Centre (SIDCUL) near Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal, Uttar Pradesh, i.e. the area as notified in the impugned notification. 9. Further from the notification, the apparent object about the filing of declaration in the prescribed format to the jurisdictional of Assistant Deputy Commissioner is mandatory for the reason that the exemption as granted therein has to be applicable only from the date of filing of the declaration about day of commencement of production. Thus, what is more important, according to our opinion, is that such declaration has to be filed in the commissionerate having jurisdict ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13 dated 08.08.2013. The Appellant challenged the O/O dated 08.08.2013 before Hon'ble CESTAT vide Appeal No. E/60233/2013. These appeals have been decided in favour of the appellant vide final order No. A/50234-50236/2015 dated 16.01.2015. 11. It becomes clear that despite the same issue stands already decided by this Tribunal in favour of the appellant, department continued issuing notices for the subsequent periods in sheer violation of the findings arrived by this Tribunal in the previous appeals. This is observed as an act against the judicial protocol, hence, cannot be allowed to sustain. The department is rather warned to be careful about the decision of this Tribunal and of superior courts to be followed and applied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
