9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 983X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned Authorized Representative for the Department and perused the record. None appeared on behalf of the respondent despite repeated notices. 3. It transpires from records that the issue is regarding the eligibility of exemption Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 to the respondent. 4. The facts of the case are that M/s Om Sai Motor Industries2 was engaged in the manufacture of auto parts in Pant Nagar, Rudrapur and was availing the benefit of exemption Notification No. 50/2003-CE. In October 2015, it established another unit pertaining to gold and silver bars in addition to its auto parts units and it sold the silver and gold unit to the respondent on 15 October, 2015. The respondent availed the benefit of exemption Notificatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he plant or machinery or on the production of new products by an eligible unit after the cut-off date and during the exemption period of ten years as per the notification." 7. From the above, it appears that the existing unit who is availing the area based exemption is entitled to add the new plant for the production of new products. In the instant case, the new product is the gold and silver bar. So, it is according to law. 8. Further, the Board's Circular No. 960/03/2012 dated 17.2.2012, is stating that the change of ownership or change of the factory premises does not de bar the unit to avail the area based exemption, that will continue. 9. During the course of arguments, the main thrust of the both the parties is regarding the are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 dated 06.10.2015 to M/s Kapoor Jewellers, Rudrapur who confirmed the purchase. Since the tribunal order dated 08.01.2018 was on the limited issue of whether the gold unit of OSMI purchased by the respondent was availing the area based exemption notification before it was transferred to the respondent, the Assistant Commissioner found the facts in favour of the respondent. The Commissioner (Appeals) has, in the impugned order, upheld the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Aggrieved, this appeal is filed by the Revenue. 7. Learned Authorized Representative vehemently argued that the final order of the tribunal dated 08.01.2018 was passed on the presumption that the entire unit of OSMI was sold to the respondent which is not true. In fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
