TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal restores decision, grants exemption based on commencement of production before deadline, evidence admissibility crucial</h1> <h3>Virgo Aluminium Ltd. Versus CCE, Chandigarh-I</h3> Virgo Aluminium Ltd. Versus CCE, Chandigarh-I - 2019 (369) E.L.T. 1218 (Tri. - Chan.) Issues:Exemption denial under Notification No. 49/50-CE dated 10.06.2003.Analysis:The appellant, a manufacturer of aluminum sheets and foils, sought exemption under Notification No. 50/03-CE dated 10/6/03, claiming to be a new unit set up after 07/1/03. However, investigations revealed that commercial production had not commenced by 31/3/10 as claimed. The Deputy Commissioner, after a show cause notice, denied the exemption. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the current appeal. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the adjudication authority, which then allowed the exemption. The Revenue appealed, resulting in the current hearing.The appellant argued that the Tribunal's directions for cross-examination were followed, confirming the start of commercial production on 30/31.03.2010. However, the Commissioner (A) questioned the certification date without specifying the visit date to the factory. The appellant contended that the impugned order was not sustainable due to this discrepancy.The respondent argued that the visit date to the factory was not specified, casting doubt on the start date of commercial production. They claimed the appellant produced substandard goods, procured raw materials post-31.03.2010, and imported machinery in April, contradicting the production date.The Tribunal found that both witnesses confirmed commercial production before 31.03.2010. The objection regarding machinery import post-31.03.2010 was deemed irrelevant as it was not part of the show cause notice. Evidence gathered post-show cause notice was ruled inadmissible. The witnesses' statements during cross-examination were deemed admissible. The Tribunal noted the lack of visits by departmental officers to the factory between 21.03.2010 and 31.03.2010, giving the benefit of doubt to the appellant. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the adjudicating authority's decision was restored, allowing the exemption under Notification No. 49/50-CE dated 10.06.2003.
TaxTMI 