https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333742 Exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE depended on proof that commercial production had commenced before the cut-off date. The evidence was found insufficient because the alleged production dates reflected only trial production, the unit was still incomplete, the machinery was later dismantled and recommissioned, and the invoices were not supported by surrounding records. On limitation, the extended period was held available where misrepresentation about the production date was alleged, and the demand was not barred by time. Denial of cross-examination did not vitiate the case because the relied-upon statement was corroborated by independent evidence. The demand and denial of exemption therefore stood against the assessee. en-us Mon, 17 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Nov 2016 10:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333742 Exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE depended on proof that commercial production had commenced before the cut-off date. The evidence was found insufficient because the alleged production dates reflected only trial production, the unit was still incomplete, the machinery was later dismantled and recommissioned, and the invoices were not supported by surrounding records. On limitation, the extended period was held available where misrepresentation about the production date was alleged, and the demand was not barred by time. Denial of cross-examination did not vitiate the case because the relied-upon statement was corroborated by independent evidence. The demand and denial of exemption therefore stood against the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 17 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333742