TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... litigation policy, the threshold monetary limit for filing the appeal by revenue is Rs. 50 lakhs. As per F.No.390/Misc/116/2017-JC dated 22 August, 2019 revenue authorities have been directed to not file appeals before the amount (50 lakhs) and all appeals that had been filed in past were to be withdrawn. In this appeal also revenue do not dispute the invoice No.01 dated 30 March, 2010 but only say that being for an amount was only for purported clearance of goods availed at Rs.1,101/- Even a single clearance would made by the respondent would have justified the start of production by the respondent. There are no merits in this appeal which could have been dismissed for the amount involved being less than prescribed threshold limit u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufacturing unit situated in Pantnagar, Uttarakhand and engaged in manufacture of motor vehicle parts falling under Chapter 87 of first schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 2.3 Respondent on 26.03.2010 filed a declaration in the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Rampur for availing benefit of exemption under Notification No.50/2003-CE dated 10 June, 2003. This exemption is applicable for industries which have commenced their commercial production before 31.03.2010, as the same such clause in respect of this notification was coming into effect from 31.03.2010. Respondent claimed that they are eligible for the benefit of this exemption notification in terms of the declaration filed on 26.03.2010. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Excise duty of Rs.20,311/- a show cause notice as referred under para-1 above was issued to the respondent demanding the said duty along with interest and penalty on the respondent. 2.6 This show cause notice was adjudicated by the Original Authority vide his order dated 14.09.2011 dropping the demands made in the show cause notice. 2.7 Revenue filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned order upheld the order of Original Authority dismissing the appeal of revenue. Hence, this appeal by the revenue. 3.1 When the matter was called today, the respondent-assessee was not present despite notice. Appellant-revenue was represented by Shri Manish Raj, Authorized Representative. 3.2 Learned Authorised Repre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... strictly with certain exceptions depending upon the settings on which the provision has been placed in the State and the object and purpose to be achieved. If exemption is available on complying with certain conditions, the conditions have to be complied with. The mandatory requirement of those conditions must be obeyed or fulfilled exactly, though at times some lot rule can be shown, if there is a failure to comply with some requirements which indirectory in nature the non-compliance of which would not affect the essence or substance of the notification granting exemption. The start of commercial production on or before 31.03.2010 was a mandatory condition of the exemption notification no. 50/03-CE dated 10.06.2003 which in my view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs of the Central Excise at the time of their visit in the unit on 07.04.2010 and 08.04.2010. It has further been pleaded that the invoice No. 01 dated 30- 03-2010 issued by the respondents was only an eyewash and there was no commencement of the commercial production as claimed by them since commercial production means production on large scale on regular basis. Even, if it was presumed that the invoice No.01 dated 30-03-2010 was a genuine invoice, there was no commercial production before 31.03.2010, which is the primary condition for exemption under the Notification. Thus the invoice No.01 dated 30-3-2010 was a fake invoice issued without any commercial production rather without any production. Relying on these grounds the department has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion cannot be denied only because the unit was found closed on the dates of the visit of the Central Excise officers. Placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (Constitutional Bench) in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi vs Hari Chand Shri Gopal and others 2010 (260) ELT03, the adjudicating authority has rightly concluded in the impugned order that: Although there was no production activity at the time of visit of the officers and the unit was found to be closed but it does not establish that whether any manufacturing activity happened in the party's unit prior to the date of visit of officers or not Non existence of any production activity on 7/8.04.2010 does not decide the eligibili ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
