Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the respondent was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE on the basis that commercial production had commenced on or before 31.03.2010, and whether the demand, interest and penalty could be sustained.
Analysis: The record showed that the respondent had filed declaration, produced purchase documents, transport documents, electricity bill, balance sheet, trade tax return and the first invoice dated 30.03.2010. The department relied mainly on the fact that the unit was found closed on 07.04.2010 and 08.04.2010, but that circumstance by itself did not establish that commercial production had not commenced before the cut-off date. The finding that exemption eligibility must be tested on substantive evidence, and not on mere presumption, was accepted. Since the department failed to produce cogent and corroborative evidence to dislodge the respondent's documentary material, the condition in the notification was held to have been fulfilled.
Conclusion: The respondent was held entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE, and the proposed demand of duty, interest and penalty was not sustainable.